Average IQ of students by college major and gender ratio

After all the controversy that arose after I posted my breakdown of college majors by gender last week, I promised myself I’d stay away from controversial gender-related topics for a while. But when I ran across an ETS-curated data set of average student IQs by college major, I couldn’t avoid putting this visualization together. Below, I plotted several college major’s estimated average student IQ over the gender ratio of that major.

The result? A shockingly clear correlation: the more female-dominated a college major is, the lower the average IQ of the students studying in the major. A naive reader may look at this graph and conclude that men are smarter than women, but it is vital to note that, on average, men and women have about the same IQ.


By popular request, here’s an interactive version of the above chart: https://plot.ly/~etpinard/330/us-college-majors-average-iq-of-students-by-gender-ratio/

IQs are typically classified as follows:

  • 130+: Very superior intelligence
  • 120-129: Superior
  • 110-119: Above average
  • 90-109: Average

Considering that many of the female-dominated majors heavily involve interpersonal interactions, my initial thought was that this all made sense: Women are widely known to be more socially-inclined and nurturing than men, so we would expect to see them dominate fields that heavily involve people. But how does that explain the drastic IQ differences between male- and female-dominated fields, if the average man and woman have the same IQ?

The answer comes from the fact that the IQ score here is estimated from the students’ SAT score. This isn’t an altogether unreasonable approach: Several studies have shown a strong correlation between SAT scores and IQ scores. But if we break down the SAT score by Verbal and Quantitative, we see why this IQ estimation is potentially misleading.


If we re-make the first plot against the Verbal SAT score, we see that it’s basically a wash: there’s no correlation between a major’s gender ratio and the average student’s Verbal SAT score.


When we plot the students’ Quantitative SAT score against the major’s gender ratio, we see the negative correlation appear again. This tells us that the original plot is actually showing preference for quantitative majors: The higher the estimated IQ, the more quantitative/analytical the major, and the fewer women enrolling in those majors.

This brings up an interesting question of how valuable the SAT is as a standardized test across all majors, if a higher SAT score is really only indicating that the student is better at solving quantitative/analytical problems. Not all majors require a high analytical aptitude, after all.

Technical bits

Some of my readers requested the R^2 for the above plots. Here they are:

The R^2 on the IQ vs major’s gender ratio graph is 0.601

The R^2 on the Verbal SAT vs. major’s gender ratio graph is 0.019

The R^2 on the Quantitative SAT vs. major’s gender ratio graph is 0.738

The R^2 between Quantitative SAT score and Verbal SAT score is 0.027

For those who want to know what R^2 means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination

Notice about the IQ data

Since I posted this article, the veracity of the IQ data set has been brought into question. I think StatisticBrain is a fairly reliable data source, but I write this here so readers can come to their own opinion about what this data shows, and how much to trust it.

The data source says “Graduate Record Examination scores” then goes on to list SAT scores. Which is it? According to this comment, the scores listed are pre-2011 GRE scores, which can be found on the ETS web site here. The IQ estimates appear to have been performed separately from ETS, perhaps by StatisticBrain.

So what does this mean for the graphs above? The IQ estimates are representative of students who are in their last year of undergraduate studies (or have already graduated) and are intending to apply to one of the majors. That makes the IQ estimates an imperfect sample, as some students may be changing majors for graduate school. I’d like to see this analysis redone with the SAT scores of students tied to their final undergraduate college major rather than intended graduate school major.

Dr. Randy Olson is an AI Scientist at Absci using data science and deep learning to make medicines better and make better medicines.

Tagged with: , , , ,
470 comments on “Average IQ of students by college major and gender ratio
  1. Nick says:

    re: But how does that explain the drastic IQ differences between male- and female-dominated fields, if the average man and woman have the same IQ?

    The link to the article sums it up. “males typically outnumber females substantially among high-scoring individuals.”

    It is well known from several studies that while men and women have about the same mean IQ of 100, the variance in IQ for men is much higher than that of women.

    People who attend college are biased toward the upper end of the IQ spectrum (both intuitively and obvious from your dataset); thus we expect men to be “smarter” than women using this subset of data only.

    If you plotted the inverse dataset (occupation by IQ for non-college graduates) you would make an inverse conclusion that women were in fact smarter. I will bet on a waitress against a garbage collector in an IQ test any day.

    • lemmycaution says:

      The women to men ratio of college attendance is something like 60/40. The men who go to college could easily have higher IQs than the women for that reason alone.

      • dungone says:

        That could explain why male-dominated majors are filled with high-IQ’d individuals, but it can’t explain why high-IQ’d majors are dominated by men.

        • Chris says:

          Simple; men are more represented at both far tails of the Bell Curve. Men are more likely to be > 130 and < 85.

          • Brutal Honesty says:

            This has been well documented.

            Most convicted violent felons are about one standard deviation below average IQ and are also mostly men.

            Everyday experience for women has shown them that most of the dumbest people they’ve ever met have been men which is one of the things that makes it so hard for them to understand that most of the smartest people are also men.

          • dungone says:

            Once again, that explains why male dominated majors have high IQ’s, but it doesn’t explain why those majors are male-dominated. There’s a difference and it’s important.

            There are a handful of female-dominated majors that are also correlated with high IQ’s in this data, such as art history. So why do men flock to CS while women flock to art history? As the first clue, I’d suggest looking at why physics majors often end up becoming quants in finance. The reason is money.

        • muhprivilege says:

          It’s all about the money. Why do people do art history? Why do they teach English? Why do they do social work? Not for money.

      • bobol says:

        thats just not true, in the U.S there are actually an even amount

    • Deborah A. Dixon says:

      In response to your comment about IQ and college, there are a couple of big grains of salt that this neat line of best fit needs to be taken with:

      Firstly, economic opportunity plays a big role in why that line looks like it does. All other things being (un)equal, men with IQs in the range of many of the ‘low IQ’ majors displayed here could do a much better job securing their economic futures in the skilled trades, and do not *need* to attend college, or attend college for a year or two and drop out to apprentice in a wide variety of fields, some of which are quasi-engineering such as autoCAD drafting, etc.

      This drives the skewed gender ratio among undergraduates in favor of females (and as a college professor in the sciences in South Texas I witnessed firsthand what happened to our gender ratio when the Eagle Ford Shale fields started getting worked down here) – and as a result, the *average* IQ (based on a larger slice of the population than of males due to the aforementioned difference in opportunity) among college females drops relative to that of males.

      Ancillary to this is that most of the equivalent IQ level ‘majors’ that are likely to be male dominated that we do not see on this chart have been farmed off to vocational/technical schools and so are missing from the ‘majors vs IQ’ chart – also resulting in skewed looking data erroneously suggesting that college females congregate ‘low IQ’ majors or are ‘of lower IQ’. Dedicated nursing and teaching technical schools used to be common, but now these students are lumped in with more traditional academic majors.

      Additionally, one needs to look at the *proportion* of college students in each of these majors; how many Education vs Mathematics majors are graduated every year? The absolute number of physicists and mathematicians in this country is tiny relative to that of teachers, nurses, and retail sales managers (which is where most of those Psychology majors are going to end up) and people in these fields are at the high end of the IQ spectrum simply because of the demands those fields make on their intelligence.

      Finally, the poor performance on the quantitative portion of the SAT, as well as the ‘math gap’ seen starting in late elementary school among females, is a distinctly American phenomenon – this ‘quantitative gap’ is greatly reduced to nonexistent in Asia and the Scandinavian countries. Even Mexico, despite its culture of machismo, does a *much* better job teaching basic quantitative skills to its students than we do in the US (a phenomenon I am constantly reminded of watching my immigrant students relative to US-educated ones, performing basic scientific calculations, and was particularly evident when I was teaching at an institution on the US/Mexican border).

      And *finally* finally, as a woman of a certain age who was discouraged from taking Calculus in favor of a *typing* class, and then advised not to bother taking calculus based physics (I vigorously fought both of these suggestions and got my course placements, but this was in the early ’80s so not *that* long ago), one should not discount, despite the cheerleading for STEM in this day and age, the constant, subtle and not-so-subtle, discouragement young girls and women are subjected to throughout their training in these careers. Being that engineering and the quantitative sciences *are* hard, just as large numbers of the merely ‘above average’ intelligence men abandon higher education for something that will be more fruitful, women abandon engineering, physics, and mathematics unless they’re hopelessly smitten, because nursing is more financially renumerative, and unlike in engineering, where they may be the only one in a classroom in the US, they’re not effectively locked out of the support resources as study groups and camaraderie that make the hard work bearable. I can spot these gals a mile away because they bust the curve in my Nursing Microbiology classes, and breeze through the dilutions and viable plate count calculations while the bulk of the students leave me wishing I drank after a hard day of working problems over and over ;).

      TL;DR: Differences in economic opportunity drive gender-based differences in the makeup of undergraduate student bodies. The US stinks at teaching quantitative skills from every conceivable angle. Human beings are social animals and congregate where they will receive support. Engineering and science are hard and demand high quantitative IQ. The difference in the tightness of the bell curve of intelligence is a real thing, so where you take the slice matters.

      • Randy Olson says:

        Easily one of the best comments here. Thank you for commenting Deborah.

        Regarding taking the number in the students in a major into account: Interestingly, there is only a weak correlation (R^2 ~= 0.06) between the number of students in the major and the average IQ of the major. Although, I do see a qualitative trend of the popular majors (Business, Psychology, Education) being near the “Average” end of the IQ spectrum here (~110). But there are also some fairly “popular” majors in the high IQ spectrum also, for example Engineering, Economics, and the Mathematical Sciences.

      • Ryan says:

        Great comment.
        This pretty much explained it for me.

        Summarizing your comment

        1. The stats do not reflect the absolute numbers of students in each major. This explains the misguiding correlation.

        2. Women are less likely to choose their majors based on their high IQ. (subconciously)

      • muhprivilege says:

        What may have discouraged you from the 80s is long gone. Women are encouraged now more than ever to participate in STEM roles. Whether they do or not is their own choice.

        You are wrong about nursing being “financially remunerative.” You insinuate higher education is a necessity among men and those who deviate make is acceptable for women to not pursue a math intensive career choice at all. Learning to a be a nurse no doubt has its challenges but it pales in comparison to becoming a physicist or engineer.

        • Sandy says:

          “What may have discouraged you from the 80s is long gone.”

          Ha ha no. I’ve tutored female college students in the past few years who got the “girls are bad at math” treatment in their schooling. Women friends who go to software meetups have repeatedly gotten “are you in marketing?” or “are you someone’s girlfriend?” There may be encouragement of girls to go into STEM — I’ve got other friends who run Python workshops for women — but it’s still pushing uphill against a mass of sexism that’s far from ‘gone’.

        • Victoria says:

          It’s not long gone by any stretch of the imagination. It’s just much, much more subtle–and therefore, harder to identify and terminate.

          The current trend of encouragement is… well, encouraging. But lasting change is slow to arise, and most female-led STEM campaigns are still a drop in the bucket compared to the overall trend of unconscious bias.

          • Class of 88 CHE says:

            Nothing will keep the women that like STEM out of those fields and anything will keep those capable that don’t really like it in the field. Ladies grow a thicker skin. You are working way too hard to find what probably isn’t there. Even if bias is ever so slightly, subtly there, so what. My advice. Get out of your heads and go live life on your terms. And Jim in the post below – I always out-performed and it never occurred to me to think in the way you outlined. Honestly we fill young women and men full of gender neuroses these days. It’s a wonder men and women can sit in a room together with out a fight or flight stress response over anticipatory manifestation of gender discrimination. I see interesting data but I don’t see a problem or a judgement. Men are better in math. Sounds like a data supported logical inference that doesn’t bother me but I am better than most men at math and science. Even if there is no difference in Quant test scores in Sweden that’s only translating into not quite 9% of current enrollment in Tertiary STEM degrees. So what. Just because you can do something equally well after high school education doesn’t mean you like it and want to do it for 40 years. If you like something and practice it you get better at it. I’ve been working since graduation in the field for a global company been in engineering, R&D, manufacturing, and IT – what a ride. Worry less, live more.

      • Jim says:

        Great comment! I got mad and wrote a longer angrier reply to someone in another thread, but thought you might be interested (if you haven’t seen it before) to look at the work on stereotype threat. http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/

        Basically, the research on stereotype indicates that if you belong to a group that society thinks is bad at something (say women and math), and you care about performing in that domain, you’ll perform worse in that domain b/c you’re anxious and/or trying hard to prove the stereotype wrong. If you remove the salience of the stereotype, or do other types of affirmation interventions the effect goes away. In other words, women do tend to perform worse than men on math tests, but only when the test is presented in a context that activates the stereotype of ‘women are bad at math’. If you give men and women math tests, and tell them before hand that the tests do not show a gender bias, then there is no gender difference in performance.

      • empirc says:

        The ‘math gap’ at the average is distinctly American, but the gap at the extremes of the bell curve is not. Higher male variability is quite well established. Male-to-female variance ratios are generally thought to be anywhere between 1.10 and 1.21. This seems small, but at the 99th percentile a male-to-female variance ratio would result in a 2:1 ratio of men to women based purely on IQ. The ratio blows up even further past the 99th percentile.

    • AndrewK says:

      Who cares? The average person in this country has one testicle and one breast. Good luck finding them. This is nothing more than mental masturbation. Don’t you have anything productive to do with all that brain power of yours?

    • AndrewK says:

      Who cares? The average person in this country has one testicle and one breast. Good luck finding them. This exercise is nothing more than mental masturbation. Don’t you have anything productive to do with all that brain power of yours?

    • The result? A shockingly clear correlation: the more female-dominated a college major is, the lower the average IQ of the students studying in the major. A naive reader may look at this graph and conclude that men are smarter than women, but it is vital to note that, on average, men and women have about the same IQ.

  2. Jason Graika says:

    I think some part of the problem is the bias that is is the SAT exam. Your data set for IQ is just based on SAT scores. The SAT is well known to be biased towards males.


    However the correlation still looks too strong and other factors are likely in play. One guess is that because more females attend college, the average female IQ in college will be lower.

    • Bob says:

      correlation =/= causation

    • Joe says:

      “The SAT is well known to be biased towards males.”

      “Well known”

      Yes, one site mentions that guys do 35 points better and 3 points better on the verbal. 3 points!

      Give me a break.

      • Jonathan says:

        Regardless, proving that men do better at a test doesn’t imply that it’s biased towards men unless you cling to the a priori belief that men and women are equal. Numerous studies have shown they are not and many commenters here have explained why observed variance in men and women is consistent with men testing higher on a college bound test.

    • Mike says:

      >The SAT is well known to be biased towards males.
      This is an extremely weak point that only survives because it is intended to thwart sexism.

      • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

        It’s factual regardless. Hey, lots of us hate the fact that cigs cause cancer too. But disliking the fact does nothing to alter the fact!

      • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

        It’s factual regardless. Hey, lots of us hate the fact that cigs cause cancer too. But disliking the fact does nothing to alter the fact!

  3. Mathematics is Pareto optimal!

  4. Jeff says:

    Well, since I don’t believe men are inherently smarter than women either, the reall issue is what IQ really measures. There are tons of discrepancies in IQ scores between various groups, varying largely on cultural differences. A lot f researchers haves looked into it. If I remember it correctly, the upshot of it all is that IQ tests measure how well conditioned a person is to the westernized culture and it’s academics.

    • Jonathan says:

      Everything measures something. A test that measures how well you will do in the academic environment of your culture? Sounds useful to me! But, I guess what matters most is what you believe.

  5. GA says:

    Interesting. I think there is a relationship with the aspirations to do certain types of work. The majors align nicely with western stereotypes of what men and women are ‘meant’ to do. It may be when people start focusing on their careers that they read less and less stuff that isn’t relevant to them anymore. Psychology majors read psychology papers etc, which makes them less fluent in abstract ideas such as physics and maths.

    Also, IQ tests measure more and more our ability to abstractly represent and manipulate information. Accordingly quite abstract subjects like math and physics get people who score high on IQ tests.

    It may be that women have a tendency towards careers, for social reasons, that are practical and about interpersonal relationships, which may be self-selecting towards majors that are less abstract and thus score lower on IQ tests?

    • Randy Olson says:

      It may be that women have a tendency towards careers, for social reasons, that are practical and about interpersonal relationships, which may be self-selecting towards majors that are less abstract and thus score lower on IQ tests?

      After looking at the SAT score data, I’ve come to this same conclusion. I think it just goes to show that IQ scores really don’t fully capture intelligence — only the ability to work and think in abstract.

      • Kelly says:

        I was always told, and this seemed true when I took the IQ tests for gifted, that the test primarily measures pattern recognition.

        As far as that goes you will see a need for more pattern recognition in STEM majors.

        There is the psychological thing as well girls tend to be more harsh on themselves, so if they are not 100% sure they might not try STEM. This explains the low percentage of women in STEM.

        These IQs are also averages, which is affected by the sample size. STEM majors usually have a smaller population and because of the intimidation factor have a higher concentration of people with high IQ. Other majors tend to have a much larger population with a broader range of people in them.

      • Chris says:

        What this really shows is people who are clamoring for more women in STEM fields should STFU. As the kiddies might say, women are not as interested in STEM fields because human nature.

        Also, IQ tests may not be perfect, but they are damn close. So close that Harvard, Yale & Princeton use them as does the US Military (ASVAB & AFQT). They work.

        • Gaby says:

          Women are not as interested in STEM fields because human nature? Do you have any evidence for this? It is more likely environmental factors. Women are discouraged from following these fields from early on. I suggest reading this report http://www.aauw.org/resource/why-so-few-women-in-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics/

          I am a woman in science with an IQ of about 140. There isn’t anything “different” in my nature. I was born in a home of encouraging people and was motivated by them to do well in math and explore my surroundings. I am sure many women (and men) can do well in STEM (and any field) if encouraged.

          • Randy Olson says:

            Agreed Gaby. I think it’s crazy to say that women are genetically predisposed to dislike STEM. Perhaps the best evidence for this is the fact that, as Deborah A. Dixon mentions in another comment, this STEM gap is nearly non-existent in several other countries. The STEM gap is much more likely to be caused by cultural norms in the U.S.

          • Jeff says:


            Holy cow you are dense as lead and should not use your IQ as a point of argument because it only makes you look solipsistic, a terrible female trait. The USA is as free as any nation can hope to be, this enables people to self-select their future to a very high degree. Tuition is cheap and the government will pay your way. If you are super-smart like you, then schools will offer you many scholarships.

            The simple fact is that, compared to men, women, on average, are more interested in people and nurturing and social concerns than they are in object orientation and focus. Nothing is preventing women from swooning over the Toyota TS040, and some do, but with far less frequency than do males. Since interest in the TS040 is a purely personal choice, and one that can be made alone, in a closet far from evil men, the absence of female fawning desires over the TS040 speaks volumes about what women want.

            I love the TS040 and similar objects, but I do not pretend that most men do. I know men who love objects similar to the TS040, and they think a high fraction of other men share their interest. I think these men are idiots because they lack a truth orientation to see that high object orientation is a limited behavior. You are like these men; you think because you are interested in X, that other women are like you. The fact that our society is open, that education is accessible, that interest in object orientation can be seen in personal hobbies and online viewing habits, and that women choose to participate less frequently than men, is telling. But if you insist that you are right, and that evil men are putting women down, then you can bravely enter the world of HBD, which is the big leagues for finding out that you are nothing special and humans are nothing more than genes and those genes code our behavior. Here is a paper on personality differences in men and women: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029265

            You cannot win because truth is manifest. Women in nations like India go into tech, because it is a way out of the unfortunate situation that is India. However, once in the USA where people have far greater options than most nations, their choices diverge. None of this is to say that you are abnormal for your interests. But you are like my friend who thinks other people like the TS040 when truth is that unlike you, they don’t even know what the TS040 is.

            Here is the predecessor TS030, I am sure you will watch this dozens of time, just like me: http://youtu.be/eRECqhIZwIA

        • May says:

          It’s not “human nature”. 66% of girls of 4th grade girls say they like science and math. Then there is a sudden drop off in female’s interest in STEM in high school, college, and beyond. Obviously this is not the result of some concerted decision made by all females to suddenly lose interest in a subject which they previously found interesting and full of possibility. It’s a result of being told that STEM is for the guys, and that girls should focus on more “feminine” academic areas; it’s a result of hearing about women in tech who are accused of only “receiving” certain positions or promotions because of their gender, or whose abilities and qualifications are constantly being challenged because they are women.

          No one is forcing STEM careers down girls throats. Groups like NCWIT are simply trying to give girls an equal opportunity to consider a career in a STEM field, and encouraging young women to not eliminate the possibility of a future in technology or engineering simply because of their gender.

          Source on the stats above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP3cyRRAfX0

          • Jeff says:

            You are wrong, it is human nature. For when given a choice, women choose differently. Randy above shows the limitation of his thinking when he agrees that because women in less free nations, where capital availability is lower, and economic self-sufficiency is less probable, choose tech that it somehow indicates an equal interest in tech across the sexes. The simple fact is that men and women are very different. Probably no nation on earth gives people a better chance at success than does the USA; the fact that women avoid tech like the plague speaks volumes. But if you disagree, fear not, for genetic research will soon show you to the be the fool common sense reveals you to be. In the meantime, here is a paper on personality differences: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029265

            • Rachel Cote says:

              I almost joined a tech field, but asshole male “peers” of mine who constantly quizzed me to not-so-subtly see whether or not I had any true intellect, talent or interest in this major I’d paid thousands of dollars to educate myself on kind of made me rethink the whole thing.
              It’s literally laughable how men think they can quantify what drives women when they literally ignore anything women say about why they fucking do what they do.


              Literally look at the results. Why do you think women aren’t in tech? Because they’re not “naturally inclined?”

              These women were naturally inclined, and after getting a taste for the industry, they’re fucking fed up. That’s why women aren’t in tech. Because they’re treated like they shouldn’t be in tech.

              • David Sims says:

                You think you were singled out, but you weren’t. Men quiz each other constantly. Sometimes, it’s an attempt to get useful information from a rival. And sometimes it’s a means of probing a rival for weaknesses. Men generally accept the give and take, rising to every challenge they can, refusing those they can’t with as little loss of credibility as they can get away with. You, however, appear to want an immunity from this game. And the most probable reason for that is you’ve lots of weaknesses that would need to be hidden, were you to embark on a sci-tech career that, most likely, would prove beyond your intelligence. It wouldn’t be long before your incompetence was exposed, and then people would shield smiles when near you, if they were polite, or point at you and laugh if they weren’t.

          • Jim says:


            Not sure you understand the word ‘solipsism’. For someone who seems to like to claim you’re making well reasoned arguments, you also seem to lean quite heavily on ad hominem attacks quite a bit too. Why would you ever call someone stupid when you’re trying to write persuasively? All you’ll do is make it incredibly unlikely they’ll even begin to consider your arguments.

            Which takes me to your arguments – they’re bad and you should feel bad. Your primary argument seems to be that they are genetic differences between men and women, and that environment plays NO role in individual differences whatsoever. This is a view that no scientist in their right mind would agree with today. Since you like big 5 personality papers, maybe look at this search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gene+environment+interaction+personality&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5. Environment plays a HUGE role in personality.

            Actually, the best thing for you to read would be the very interesting work on stereotype threat. Stereotype threat describes situations in which a commonly held societal belief influences a group of individuals performance ONLY because the belief alone. For example, if you give a Math test to a randomly selected group of men and women, you typically find that the men outperform the women. However if you give another group of randomly selected men and women the same test, but just tell them before hand ‘this is a test that men and women typically perform equally well on’, men and women perform EXACTLY the same way. This phenomenon can be seen on ‘academic achievment tests’ for students that our culture typically think have low academic achievement (eg black or hispanic students), or for white males performing tests of ‘athletic performance’. I actually you’ll think this is vey interesting: https://web.archive.org/web/20160304112940/http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jeffs/golf1.pdf. Just read the abstract/skip to figure one, if you want a quick summary. But remember, this same effect is seen w/ gender & STEM field performance.

            For more info:

            And Chris – learn what causality is – this graph doesn’t conclusively show anything except the current distribution of SAT scores by gender. I actually think it’s a really stark reminder that we need to do MUCH better encouraging young women to pursue STEM fields. Also learn how to make an argument without the phrase ‘STFU’. You’re embarrassing yourself. Actually, as a man and as a person you and jeff both embarrass ME.

          • Gaby says:


            Yes, women and men can be different and their personalities vary as well. And yes, genes control many things. However, the environment controls genes (and importantly in the case of behavior it also controls neural circuits). Complex behaviors have been hard to trace back uniquely to single genes because of this.

            Saying that the fact that women chose differently because of their nature does not make sense. You aren’t evaluating the environment they were exposed to while growing up that lead to this choice. For example, you like cars. Maybe when you were young you played with cars and were encouraged by someone you looked up to. Some girls grow up in homes with strong gender stereotypes and are not allowed to play with cars or simply not exposed to them. When these girls grow up they may show little interest for cars while you still have this interest. This does not mean that they naturally don’t like cars. These choices are in fact purely personal as you say, but they have been influenced by the opinion of others. The same thing can happen with career choices. As May said, these girl’s interest and ability in STEM drops in high school, they are not born with an innate preference and this is why it is probably not in their nature.

            Few things are uniquely genetic or environmental. In personality it is usually an interaction of both and it is hard to dissect these two apart. In the particular case of career choice, if you read the report I posted it seems to be to a great extent the latter. Now if you show me articles where they show that men and women have different abilities and personalities due to GENETIC differences that can not be overcome by environmental influences that lead to career choices I would love to read it.

            And please if you are going to reply, avoid the derogatory adjectives towards us or females. It is rude and I am simply trying to have an enriching discussion. Thank you.

          • Gaby says:


  6. L says:

    the problem that I have with this is that you reduce gender to an oversimplified binary, presumably based on biological sex. however, even from an academic perspective, gender is not necessarily reducible to biological sex (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender_difference). gender encompasses many factors that transcend biological binaries. I assume that your data simplified male to “people with male reproductive organs” and female to “people with female reproductive organs” to female. to do so, in my opinion, ignores the fact that gender is at least largely socially constructed and collapses a highly dimensional feature space (i.e. some space of personality traits) down to a binary space without justifying why such an approach is appropriate.

    • lemmycaution says:

      This study is based on SAT data that asks for your future major and for your gender. Presumably, transgendered students can select their gender according to their gender identity so it is not strictly based on genitalia. It doesn’t matter because there are not very many transgendered students.

    • D says:

      That’s cute, too bad your biology and your hormones responsible for, I guess “intelligence” aren’t dependent on how womanly you feel or not.

      “gender is at least largely socially constructed”

      No, it’s really not. Keep this shit on tumblr and outside of scientific discourse.

      • ida says:

        Gender socially constructed. Chances are, you don’t have children.

      • K says:

        Guessing you assumed this was a woman and started taking out all your male aggression on her for her opinions, yes? Chill out, bro. She’s right that this issue extends beyond biology into the societal realm. The beliefs that society holds about gender does have an effect on how an individual comes to think about their value to society. With regard to schooling, there are studies that prove that a girl’s perception of her worth and ability will effect her test results (no doubt because women process and attend to language differently than men). Stop blowing your load over biology. The innate differences in our brain structure are not in question- it’s the attitude toward these differences that need to be examined. The reality is women are expected to take part in the workforce, which means we need to restructure some areas of our society with respect to gender. Adjusting your language might be a good way to start, lest you’re content with the idea of being surrounded by upset women who have power. Which is what’s happening by the way, and it has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with the reaction to women in the workforce. Your assumption that society has no bearing on gender ability is made false by neuroscience which has proven that women are acutely aware of their surroundings and grossly effected by language. You might not have made the connection (another heightened feature in the female brain), though it should have been obvious to you by now since using language techniques with women is quite popular in the manosphere. Luckily there are actually scientists doing the work, instead of arrogantly trolling and trying to silence everyone who has a difference of opinion.

        • G says:

          K, I like how you shoot down D for assuming L was a woman (which D didn’t even actually do), you then go on in the very next sentence to assume L is a woman yourself.

          Then you try to downplay the effect (correct use of effect) biology has on gender, instead advocating for how environment affects (correct use of affect) the genders. While at the same time making several references to how women are biologically more inclined to XYZ than men are, belittling your own point in the very motion of making it.

          It’s quite fascinating yet extremely saddening.

      • Chris says:

        I wish I could give “D” 10,000 +1s. Perfectly said.

    • K says:

      This post certainly begs the question…

    • Bryanb says:

      Did you just reference Wikipedia in an attempt to disprove a collection of data you disagree with? Bring that SJW BS back to tumblr and stay away from academic discussions. You bring nothing credible to the table.

      • A says:

        When someone cite wikipedia, it’s customary to actually check if the article itself references good academic material. While the article does have quite a few problems, there is a vast amount of material on how gender is at least partially a social construct. You’re contributing far less to any academic discussion by dismissing L’s argument for a shitty reason than their argument has.

        Nonetheless, as previous commenters have stated, the genders are self reported, and the small amount of trans individuals is unlikely to impact any of the major conclusions. Those are good reasons to argue against L, yours are not.

      • Rachel Cote says:

        “Academic discussions” =

      • Rachel Cote says:

        You’re right, this is clearly a very elite crowd full of intellectuals.

    • Mike says:

      >act that gender is at least largely socially constructed

      This is not a fact. It is conjecture fueled by ideological bias.


      • Mike says:

        http://www.fairtest.org/ is a pretty biased source.

        They state: “Twice as many males as females achieve SAT scores over 700. If the scoring gap were caused solely by the larger pool of females taking the exam, females should still attain the same percentage of high scores as males. In fact, the opposite is true: the gender gap is largest in the highest score ranges.”

        They seem unaware of the fact that greater male variability in IQ scores explains that.

        Further, I believe that the SAT discards questions that show a bias toward one or the other sex — so the sex differences are actually minimized.

        I know that this is the case for IQ tests — they were designed specifically (via a statistical procedure called item analysis) so that males and females have, on average, about the same overall IQ scores.

        On tests of cognitive aptitude that have not been designed to eliminate sex differences in overall scores (Raven Progressive Matrices) one does find greater average sex differences.

        There are areas where women score higher than men, such as verbal fluency and object location memory.

        • K says:

          The proof of a difference in brain structure and function has already been explained by the field of neuroscience. This is baffling to me, because usually whenever something is scientifically proven the public changes their attitude. We already have the facts- the public just isn’t aware. It’s absolutely a political issue.

          • Jim says:

            Neuroscientist here. Jury is still way out on what anatomical gender differences mean. We still don’t understand how gross anatomical structure maps to function in almost any context (e.g. disease contexts), let alone differences in gender. And that’s even before you make the jump about genetics and not developmental/epigenetic/environmental factors being the primary influence on function (or structure for that matter).

  7. D says:

    The reason seems rather obvious: the IQ distribution of men is bimodal, while the IQ distribution of women is unimodal. i.e. You get really smart men, and then see get some REALLY dumb ones. The dumb ones are not reflected since many dont show up in the dataset for college students since they didnt get into college.

    • Randy Olson says:

      I had that thought also, but I don’t think there are enough men on the “genius” end of the spectrum to cause such a large bias in the majors like this.

      • Mike says:

        those averages shown aren’t in the genius level, and if you were in the computer science/astronomy/physics fields, and made it past the first year or so, the data here is very believable, at least in my experience.

  8. Robert says:

    Women don’t have to earn a living. They can go to college to find a man. So why work the brain muscle too hard?

    • Leigh Sheneman says:

      “Women don’t have to earn a living. They can go to college to find a man. So why work the brain muscle too hard?”

      Woman do in fact have to earn a living. Not only is the cost of living such that two incomes are necessary to live comfortably. Some of us actually like to work and think quite poorly of people of this mindset. I am simply amazed a male has the guts to vocalize such an outdated and bigot point of view in this day and age.

      • Justin says:

        Altough tone is hard to read in text, I’m fairly sure that the commentor was being satirical. We can’t always take a comment like this at face value.

      • Michael says:

        I make enough on my own to live comfortably because I am an intelligent male and don’t have to give no bitch no dough

      • wgone says:

        What he most likely mean is that society dont expect women to work. A woman who stays at home and taken care by a wealthy man is looked at in envy by other women. A man that does not work and takes care of a family is considered to be shirking his responsibility. In many cases where women work the man pays for the upkeep of the home and she get to keep her income. Unless of course they both earn similar incomes – something that you’d expect to be more widespread considering the feminizing of your education system over the past few decades. And why not – brand name bags and every shade of the latest Louboutin pumps are over $1000 a pop.

      • Carrie says:

        I wish I could be as amazed as you are that a man was so stupid.

        • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

          This proves women are superior to men: women can actually see how stupid men are (as it is quite evident in everything we do and say). Yet men still cannot see how stupid we are. Women are superior by that default alone 😀

        • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

          This proves women are superior to men: women can actually see how stupid men are (as it is quite evident in everything we do and say). Yet men still cannot see how stupid we are. Women are superior by that default alone 😀

      • Pragmatia says:

        Please inform yourself on the definition of the word “bigot.” Your comment here conclusively demonstrated that it is you who, in fact, is the bigot, i.e. one who is intolerant of the opinion of others.

      • asdfds says:

        Why make it so hard to tell parody from “reality”? That’s rude.

    • Chris says:

      Please don’t breed.

      • wgone says:

        Yup, you have just fell into the classic trap the supports the theory of Gynocentricism (or WOW women are wonderful phenomenon) – where humans females and males whose behavior is approved by women try to suppress the reproduction of men – causing very significant men not to contribute to the gene pool, for which there is DNA evidence. But the joke is on you – white knighting only makes you look silly, as all men know what it is.

        • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

          Men who are worthy of contributing to the gene pool do so by providing their DNA to sperm banks. The horny losers among us begging to get laid are quite the opposite of the superior specimens at any sperm bank.

          Sorry they turned you down, but they cannot allow inferior stock into the gene pool.

          Also, I DO actually believe women are wonderful. That is why I have never once come to have any problems getting with any woman. I had to look up your made up word there. It is a portmanteau, and as such proves it does not exist. I would LOVE a gynocentric world, which would be nothing as you describe. We’ve effed up this planet for long enough. Time to let the non-effed up ones give it a whirl and see if they can “Un-f*ck” all the disasters we’re responsible for.

          • wgone says:

            Sorry to hear that there are horny losers amongst you. Yea that can really screw you up and turn you into a SIMP (another look up for ya).

            Yea, buddy, with them breaking thru all the records for IQ, thats why they dominate all the inventions, billionaire lists, patents, leading mathematicians, the arts, music, chess players, and now i see you guys dominating WORLD soccer. Women never eff up anything, they get asshole mangina men and white knights to do it all.

        • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

          Men who are worthy of contributing to the gene pool do so by providing their DNA to sperm banks. The horny losers among us begging to get laid are quite the opposite of the superior specimens at any sperm bank.

          Sorry they turned you down, but they cannot allow inferior stock into the gene pool.

          Also, I DO actually believe women are wonderful. That is why I have never once come to have any problems getting with any woman. I had to look up your made up word there. It is a portmanteau, and as such proves it does not exist. I would LOVE a gynocentric world, which would be nothing as you describe. We’ve effed up this planet for long enough. Time to let the non-effed up ones give it a whirl and see if they can “Un-f*ck” all the disasters we’re responsible for.

  9. jim terwiliger says:


  10. jayleigh says:

    I have had this discussion with many people about IQ. My wife and I excelled in grade school through high school. She graduated valedictorian. We both went to college. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and an MBA. She has a BA in Math, and a masters in Computational Engineering (high concept math/computer science mix). Neither of us have ever taken an IQ test. Who takes them? Why? What are the questions? If I never encountered one through academia, what validity does it have. I have always been curious and chalked it up to the test that the scientologists give that feed into people’s ego.

    • skeptic says:

      If you read the article, the IQ scores are based on SAT scores.

      • Zack says:

        Actually if you read the article, Skeptic, it says SAT scores are CORRELATED with IQ… not based on them. So much for being a smart ass eh?

        • A says:

          How’s Skeptic being a smartass? Jayleigh seemed to call into issue WHO was taking these IQ tests, and Skeptic’s response, I think, was meant to clarify that the given IQ scores are based on actual SAT scores (and this is done, because as you note they are correlated).

        • greg says:

          Don’t eat from the troll. Statistically any thread of comments on the internet will degrade exponentially to gobbly gook.

  11. Dean says:

    If you could make a trellis chart of this data, it may be t(r)elling.

    I think it is plausible that the result is explained by a culture that discourages women from analytical pursuits. I also think that more analytical => more discouragement towards women. As this cultural quirk is overturned, we can expect the most analytical majors (ironically)to be the last to give.

    W/r/t “The higher the estimated IQ, the more quantitative the major (with Philosophy being an odd exception)” if you replace ‘quantitative’ with ‘analytical’ then philosophy is less of an exception..

  12. John says:

    A lot of people are analyzing these data wayyyyyy outside the scope of what it intends. The results show a very narrow conclusion: that among college students, male-dominated majors have women in them with higher IQs.
    No where in the data does it implicate that IQ correlates to sheer intelligence, or that men are smarter than women in these fields because of IQ variance (how could you possibly get that from the data?).

    Watch your scope and don’t make saltatory inferences from data! Please and thank you.

    • John says:

      Just two clarifications:

      1. I meant male-dominated majors have people* in them with higher IQs.

      2. The data suggest that men do, in fact, have higher IQs than women given the IQ variance. That could mean that, in a physics class of 10 with two women, 5 males could have an IQ below 100 and 3 of about 150 (i.e., large variance) and the two women of about 120-130. This plausible example demonstrates that the “higher IQ” statement should not be set in stone. My main point: don’t jump to conclusions. Just take the data for what they’re worth.

  13. herpderp says:

    Men have greater IQ variance, and the low IQ males are not in Uni.

  14. Scott says:

    The amount of fidgeting to get around the truth is quite humorous. Sure, gender identification extends past genitalia, but I bet that single predictor explains the vast majority of the variation between “male” and “female”, as you would have them described. Someone did make a good point that abstraction competency is also only one part of intelligence. It can be equally argued that the individuals who scored highest on the predictive IQ based on SAT inferences are among the more emotionally/socially incompetent out there. Furthermore, there are biological differences in the brain structure of males and females, resulting in higher emotional intelligence for women than men. Facts, by definition, are not slander.

    As far as standard IQ goes, the most demanding of the sciences are male dominated. No need to wag the dog.

    • asdfds says:

      “Furthermore, there are biological differences in the brain structure of males and females, resulting in higher emotional intelligence for women than men”

      That’s as far as average emotional intelligence values are at issue.

      If you move to the extreme right end of the curve, men are found to be a heavy prevalent majority, once again. (See the great “revolutionaries” of history for an example.)

  15. bahniks says:

    An easy explanation is that women are on average smarter than men in most of the fields. That way it would be possible that quantitative SAT corresponds to IQ fairly well while both sexes may still have same distribution of scores. It would be possible to test that if you have data for both sexes separately.
    Simple example: you may have 20% of women in physics with average IQ 155, 80% men with average IQ 130, making the average IQ for physics 135. Then you may have 80% of women in education with average IQ 115 and 20% men with average IQ 90, i.e. average IQ for education 110. This way you may get the pattern of results in the graph.

  16. StonerHippie says:

    If you think philosophy is an “odd exception” in the way you describe, clearly you have at some level never understood what philosophy is all about – pure logic and reasoning. Philosophy involves having a robust understanding of logical principles (which it fathered) — principles which became the mathematical axioms which the fields of math and physics rely on today, so it makes sense they are grouped together. It also makes sense philosophy is slightly lower than mathematics on the chart because it always draws its fair share of lower performing (on average) stoner/hippie students who have found it to be their “goto” major under reasoning such as “I don’t know what to study so I’ll study philosophy because it’s about cool unanswered questions and my friends would think I’m selling out if I became a major other than environmental science or community planning”.

    • Philosopher says:

      THANK YOU. I was reading that and though “This person doesn’t know what philosophy entails.” Technically he’s right that it isn’t “quantitative, but if you just substitute the word “analytical” it makes perfect sense. Philosophy is the study OF analytics.

    • Kennon Gilson says:

      See my comment on philosophy above 1/26/15

  17. Cindy says:

    Can you outline the majors that have an average of <100 IQ?

  18. Flynn says:

    Given that IQ is not static over a person’s lifetime, the obvious question is: are these “IQ” figures (and SAT scores, for that matter) for these students taken before their college education, or after? It would hardly surprise me to find that mechanical engineers and computer scientists are better at puzzle solving, like the kind you’d find on an IQ test.

    The URL of the source is “iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major”, which suggests that not only is the IQ score taken from *before* their college education, but there’s no certainty that their intended college major ends up being their actual college major (one of my professors who kept track of such things said that the vast majority of students did not graduate in the field they originally thought they would), or even if they graduated at all.

    That is, it’s essentially a self-reported survey. Everyone knows engineers make more money than social workers. Ask a bunch of incoming freshmen what they think they can do. The ones who have been told they’re smart and good at math pick engineering. That’s hardly surprising, but it’s also not very informative.

    Could it be that boys who had higher math scores wanted to become engineers, and girls who had higher verbal scores thought they wanted to become teachers and social workers, *because* they had not yet been to college and seen what these fields actually entailed?

    I’d be interested to see before-and-after IQ scores for college students, and also before-and-after college majors. As it stands now, these charts are very misleading.

  19. XorFish says:

    I think a huge part of the difference could be explained with the number of males and females that go to college.

    The difference is quite huge. Ranging from 33 to 50% more women than men that go to college.

    It could very well be, that a lot of men that could major in female dominated fields drop out or want to do something what they deem more rewarding.

  20. Jennifer Bartholomew says:

    There are a number of factors that combine to affect career and educational choices, including aptitude (which is where I’d include IQ scores as a subfactor), interest, salary aspirations, and social factors such as status/prestige etc. You’ve written insightfully in the past about the disincentives men face in choosing careers such as nursing and education, given the assumptions people tend to make about men in female-dominant professions. Similar factors affect women’s choices. Your interest and aptitude for a subject both have to be considerably higher than average to make it come out as the best choice when you would be a minority in the field.

    So overall I’d say what this trend implies is a vicious circle: women avoid STEM careers because they know that other women are avoiding those careers, and being the only woman (or one of a handful of women) in a room full of men is often uncomfortable or embarrassing enough to outweigh other factors in favour of a profession. And the same would be true for men who would have otherwise liked to become, say, nurses, or early childhood educators. Social factors are particularly influential on teenagers, which is where we are in life when we’re choosing our college majors. This would mean that as the percentage of women rises within a profession, the number of female undergraduates willing to major in the subject would also rise, so I suspect that a graph of the % of women in historically male professions chronologically from the point where women are first permitted to enter the profession would show that the growth rate is exponential. Or maybe j-curved, if the earliest adopters have very negative experiences which are made public – something we have seen in the media for many professions, including IT and the military.

    • Dave says:

      Sure, that explains the difference in male-to-female ratio, but it doesn’t explain the strong inverse correlation between SAT and major.

      What we need is to know if the SAT was taken before or after. Because of the rigorous nature of some of these majors, one could argue that the majors themselves will increase the test taking ability of the students. If that’s the case, then the “social construct” argument could be valid because the major selection would affect test scores, not the other way around.

      I highly doubt that the SAT was given after graduation though… I think that it’s exactly what other posters have mentioned: men have a higher variation and therefore make up a much larger percentage of the high SAT scoring spectrum.

      Because highschool classes should be similar for both men and women, I don’t think you can argue that cultural or social factors play into this. A test is a test, and the background and preparations for men and women shouldn’t begin to diverge until after college starts.

      • Jennifer Bartholomew says:

        The point I was trying to make in the first paragraph is that the variables are interrelated (aptitude, interest, $, social factors) and that where one is weak, another must be significantly above-average to compensate. This study just considers two variables in two of the factors (aptitude, measured here by SAT scores/IQ) and social factors (measured here by just one factor, gender). I am not familiar with SAT scoring so I’ll refer to IQ – apologies if the analogy doesn’t hold up to SAT.

        Assuming Career X and Career Y will both have negative social factors for an individual because of the way his/her ethnicity or gender will affect their experience in the career. If Career X is one in which the average member of the profession has an IQ of 100, then 50% of all people could be considered above-average at that profession, and it will not take long for the critical mass of new entrants to the profession to be achieved. Career Y is one in which the average member of the profession has an IQ of 135, so less than 5% of the population has the potential to be above average. Career Y thus would have an extremely slow rate of growth for any ethnic or gender group in which the social factors of that profession are perceived as negative, and it would take a very long time for the critical mass to be achieved, if ever. So it would be perfectly natural to see more Career Y professions in a low-diversity quadrant of the scale, and more Career X professions in a high-diversity quadrant of the scale.

        Another way to test this is to see if the same pattern holds for various ethnicities as it does for gender. If it does, then the argument “women like socially oriented careers better than math and science” would have to be restated as as “men of Z ethnicity, and women of all ethnicities, like socially oriented careers better than math and science”. I’m not sure as many people would be comfortable with that hypothesis. However if it turns out that careers with high IQ thresholds are also less ethnically-diverse than careers with lower IQ thresholds, then that would support my suggestion.

    • Bruce Winn says:

      Jennifer Bartholomew

      Men don’t choose not to become

      “…early childhood educators”

      because other men do not choose it. Men would rather not go jail. Peter Ellis.

  21. A says:

    How does the data correlate with graduation rates for each major? If only 25% of engineering majors graduate (I think that’s somewhere in the ballpark), and 70% of communications majors do, wouldn’t we expect the average IQ in the more selective field to be higher?

  22. John says:

    The IQ system of measuring intelligence is inherently biased towards quantitative reasoning and observation based data retention. It is, essentially, a measurement of how close you are to the idealized version of intelligence as dictated by the makers of the test, which is inherently biased against different forms of intelligence such as emotional intelligence, social intelligence, physical intelligence and creative intelligence. If you are trying to discern how smart someone is, a test should encapsulate all aspects of mental intelligence, not just number based reasoning.

  23. Dan says:

    Philosophy isn’t an “odd exception.” Philosophy is hardcore analytical training. Moreover, philosophy is the father of science, which was called “natural philosophy” until just the last ~200 years.

    • Ryan says:

      Excellent point

    • Kennon Gilson says:

      See my comment above.

    • Raymond Martin says:

      Wrong. You are misinterpreting the term “natural philosophy”. Science went on its own path because philosophy was insufficient to explain reality.

      • Samet says:

        insufficient is not what I would call it, philosophy was not interested too much in the biological and physical sciences but the likes of Pascal and Descartes contributed to pure mathematics, it’s just a different focus than what we are focused on today in science however it is the birthplace of all sciences.

      • Nick Swenson says:

        huh? Do you know PhDs are a Philosopher’s Doctorate? It’s means you’re good enough to be a “philosopher” in that subject. Science is a particular style of philosophy, it falls under the broader category.

        • Jim diamond says:


          • Nick Swenson says:

            No. This would only be genetic fallacy if the current context has changed, which it hasn’t. Science is still a form a philosophy.

            Definition of philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline

            Science falls under that category.

            Nice try though, it’s good to see people using fallacy to root our incorrectness. 😛

            • Diamond Clarity says:

              nonsense. There’s a list of topics which any philosopher will identify as falling under the remit of philosophy. ‘The philosophy of science’ is one such topic. But conducting experiments in a laboratory is not. Wittgenstein my friend. Meaning is use.

              • Nick Swenson says:

                Yeah, I’ve had that quoted under me. And I don’t buy it. I think it’s important to remember that science is a philosophy that makes a huge assumption: everything meaningful is measureable. This is simply an assumption, and could be false, from a metaphysical point of view. It’s important to remember there are things we experience that, while not quantifiable, can be just as significant. Chaos theory allows this, as error is not linear … could be anything really. Honestly, it completely allows for small, unmeasurable effects to have significant, or even defining influence. This is the world we live in, whether science likes it or not. I realize it’s absurd to think this is always true. Sometimes measurable forces do have the defining impact, and those systems are predictable. But, there are tons and tons out there than aren’t. The brain is an amazing example of this. Heck it’s complex systems of complex systems. Error, and therefore predictability, is utterly unknowable.

                Meaning is not just use. That’s too simple to explain the term “meaning.” Meaning is derived from tons of pragmatically useless things/concepts. I would say it’s arrogant of you to think you can truly define “meaning” using words, let a single word.

                • Diamond Clarity says:

                  You misunderstand. The meaning of a word is determined by how we – the linguistic community – use it. This has nothing to do with value judgements about whether a concept is useless/useful. It’s purely descriptive.

                • Derek Diaz says:

                  you said, “I think it’s important to remember that science is a philosophy that makes a huge assumption: everything meaningful is measureable. This is simply an assumption, and could be false, from a metaphysical point of view.”

                  Actually it is more than an assumption. Logic demands it.
                  Aristotle covered this 2300 years ago and lesser minds like that of Descartes and Kant have tried unsuccessfully to argue against it for the last 300 years.

                  Ayn Rand gave the fallacy that all these Subjectivists are making a name: the fallacy of the stolen concept. However, she merely gave the common fallacy a shorthand name. Aristotle already put forth the argument settling this definitively eons ago. In a nutshell: asserting that A is not A is a contradiction that ultimately leads to one not being able to speak. If A is not A then your very words are undefined, your thoughts are as well, and nothing you say has any meaning. Subjectivists create the absurd situation where their own arguments are invalidated by their argument. Read Aristotle’s “A is A” argument if you were not taught it properly.

                  Yes “A is A” is an axiom. It is an assumption. However, it is the only assumption that has any possibility of being correct. All the other permutations of Subjectivist arguments amount to saying, “but their could be other possibilities” and then demanding that one prove a negative, i.e., prove that it is not the case that some other fantasy reality in fact exists. Proving a negative is fallacy. The reality of the situation is the onus is on the Subjectivist to prove that his wild metaphysical assertions are valid.

                  And that is something he can never do because his fantasies are absurd.

                  All of this reminds me of a great quote:
                  “anything claimed without proof can be dismissed without proof”

              • Raymond Martin says:

                Exactly. There is a philosophy of science, as a sub area of philosophy, and then there is science. There are numbers of other sub areas of philosophy, but they aren’t the actual topics themselves (e.g. language, religion).

        • orbicularioculi says:

          A PhD in education or Social “Sciences” or various Racial or Gender Studies DOES NOT require the same IQ as Math, Physics, Chemistry… Bottom line is that IQ is predictable of success in life and academics. Half of college students probably shouldn’t be there – total waste of time and money.

          • Jim diamond says:

            You might be right about maths and physics. I’m not sure about Chemistry though. Gibson and Light (1967) found that physicists at Cambridge had an average IQ of 127.7, whereas their peers studying social sciences scored an average of 121.8 (Gibson and Light 1967: 422). Bear in mind that an individual can have a very high IQ, yet be highly uncreative (i.e is able to understand complex ideas, record large amounts of information, process information very rapidly, but is unable to formulate novel and original idea)

          • Jim diamond says:

            also maths and physics students probably score lower on verbal intelligence tests, but higher on numerical intelligence tests, than their peers studying humanities

            • Derek Diaz says:

              “probably” you are wrong.

              Also, factually you are wrong. High IQ in one area is a strong predictor for high IQ in all other areas.

          • Drew Brockson says:

            It doesn’t require the same implementation of intelligence. Certainly you are intelligent enough to know that IQ alone is not predictable of success or failure for that matter. And all the subjects of expertise you mentioned reqiure an equal amount of intelligence aimed, if you will, for different ends to different means.

        • Hans Christian Rasmussen says:

          YES Exactly!!!! I really, really could not have put it better myself, and I am an M.A. in philosophy, from the University of Bergen in Norway, one of the best places to study that subject in Europe.

        • Raymond Martin says:

          You can have a Ph.D in almost any subject, it doesn’t mean you are a philosopher, proper. It means you are at the top of a particular subject area. Try reading on that some time because you didn’t, obviously.

          • Tay says:

            As I stated, there are PhD’s for different subjects, majors, etc. Generally a PhD does mean you are a philosopher in your area of expertise. PhD’s also are heavily philosophy based in study and nature as generally with getting a PhD you are also taught a good level of philosophy (depending on your major). Your title upon recieving a PhD is also regarded as a philosopher among many communities. However a philosophy major is more about the study of studying, or rather how to think about things in abtract ways to get to answers or even more questions to seek answers to. I can’t say I know much about people with PhD’s in Philosophy; however I work directly with people that each have varying ScD’s and PhD’s and will be on my way to receiving my ScD once I finish up with my M.S. as PhD’s aren’t as useful in my field unless you want to go into teaching, journalism, public relations, councilor, lawyer, public policy, social worker, consulting, labor relations, hold a major office or something.

        • Tay says:

          Actually there is PhD (Doctorate of Philosophy) and ScD which is a Doctorate of Science. There are very contradictory differences in the 2. There’s also MD and DO. Doctorate of Medicine is a type of ScD while DO (Doctorate of Osteopathy) is a type of PhD. Most of the doctors we see are Doctors of Osteopathy meaning they have PhD’s. Because of television and media are flooded with PhD it’s actually a misconception that a Doctorate of Philosophy is better.

      • Miteran Pasku says:

        philosophy is a science of finding the best method . If you mean that numbers are the science . In my method , numbers are just the final step to use to explain to the others in a very specific way . Philosophy discovered everything but the fulish people that think in the method of numbers called foolish the peoples that use the method of feelings . So natural philosophy is that a person to find the best operation system lenguage for his brain and to organize it in the most harmonic and intuitive way . Do you know what hapened to the pople that tried to install in their brain Math , overthinkig in the method of numbers ? They lose control of their brain .

        • Raymond Martin says:

          Philosophy is not a science. It doesn’t use experiment to come to conclusions, establish theories. It uses logic only. That is the major different between philosophy and science. Science requires experiment first and foremost before theories are established.

          • SugaDad says:

            Is mathematics a science? According to your definition it is not.

            • Raymond Martin says:

              Mathematics is part of the area known as formal science. It uses proofs to establish its theories, and at the base of mathematics is the counting principle in number theory, that can be linked back to physical objects. No such kind of real theoretical to experimental proofs are possible in philosophy, that is why it is not part of science. Go read up on it.

              • SugaDad says:

                “Science requires experiment first and foremost before theories are established.”

                A counting principle is not an experiment. Neither do formal sciences necessarily make use of experiments. Is it a necessary condition that science make use of experiments? Or are we justified in calling certain disciplines such as mathematics science, even if they do not make use of experiments?
                Maybe you are the one who has some reading to do.

      • Gianmarco Salerno says:

        Wow your so wrong Raymond! Read a book on logic the lady or the tiger, which is a logic based form of philosophy.(No the lady or the tiger is not math Raymond…)

        • Raymond Martin says:

          Wow, you are not very smart. There are many types of logic and they apply to different scopes/systems. Merely having a logic does not make something science. Religion has a logic, it is the antithesis of science. And so you fail at logic (in general).

      • eyesfrontmen says:

        As a scientist, with a fair amount of philosophy training, I’ll say that your statement is incomplete to such a degree that it is misleading.
        Science went on its own path because philosophy was insufficient to explain the mechanics of the natural world.

        • Tay says:

          Yes that is true. I just didn’t have time to explain the whole thing. Your summary was very well worded and short.

        • Richard Williams says:

          There are a lot of things that science has trouble explaining although there is already an a priori belief among a lot of scientists that naturalistic explanations will eventually be found. That is where philosophy comes into play.

    • TCS says:

      Before I went to Law school, I double majored in philosophy and physics and took more math than anything and I would say that philosophy requires more intelligence than physics, math or law.

      Also, I don’t put a lot of stock into the whole IQ test thing because I only got a 1320 and the SAT, but I got a 2360 on the GRE and a perfect score on the LSAT. I think this has to do with that I didn’t study for the SAT, but took like 5 practice tests for the LSAT and two for the GRE. Accordingly, if you study for the test, your IQ score will be like 30 or 40 points higher.

      Accordingly, the tests all have a lot to do with how much you have studied for the test and your educational background.

      • Jim Williamson says:

        I studied Physics at Berkeley and the biggest challenge is staying awake.

        • Derek Diaz says:

          Did you manage to barely pass the class or did you fail miserably?

          What kind of a mind does not value knowing how the world works?

          The highest level man can aspire to comes from his mind’s ability to grasp the nature of the universe.

          • kevin says:

            You and I both know that universities today are graduating far too many students with IQs in the 100 range.

            • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

              The most dangerous people are graduates with IQs of 100 to 115. They think they are smart and know everything but they don’t realise they don’t know what they don’t know. If they don’t know it, it is not true or irrelevant. Usually political advocate types that push an a gender because they don’t know the other side of the argument. They don’t think, they parrot slogans and phrases.

        • David Sims says:

          I had a quantum professor whose southern accent was so bad that not even I could understand him, and I was raised in the south.

      • Derek Diaz says:

        Check your premises.

        I majored in Physics and Mathematics and took one introductory philosophy course during my undergrad years. The philosophy undergraduate courses in universities today run the student through a gamut of historical nonsense. Ridiculous subjectivist arguments given by all manner of moronic theists, and socialist atheists, from the Ontological Argument to Kant. All of which are based on logical fallacies handled thousands of years earlier by Aristotle.

        Coming from Physics and Math; I expected greatness from the father of science. I was astounded at how stupid the discipline of philosophy is. It soured me on philosophy for 25 years, until I found the greatest philosopher of the last 2300 years: Ayn Rand.

        Addressing your wild speculation on IQ: You are speaking with absolutely no basis in fact. Utterly shocking considering you claim to have double majored in Philosophy and Physics. Presumably you would have learned Aristotle’s Laws of Logic from philosophy. From physics you would have had the scientific method inculcated in you.

        Why didn’t you bother to read any of the scientific literature on IQ before you started to speculate generally using your N=1 experiment? The statistical power in IQ experiments is unmatched. There have been millions of measurements tracked over time to determine predictive power.

        If you had, you would have discovered in short order, that you can not “study for the test”. The idea is you take the test cold and then either take a different type of test for IQ, or you refrain from taking that same test again for months or years, until you have forgotten what is on it, to avoid familiarity effects. You are violating the way the test is supposed to be approached. Using your brand of “logic” why not just memorize all the answers for the test? Better yet, write the answers down on a cheat sheet you use while taking the test. Did you really major in philosophy? No wonder you found it intellectually demanding. You have no ability to reason.

        • Richard L says:

          The more a man philosophizes, the less he knows.

          The more science man advances, the more he knows.

          Therefore, science (inclusive of physics and mathematics) is more intellectual demanding than philosophy.

          • Richard Williams says:

            If science is more intellectually demanding, why do so many scientists have trouble understanding the data? Their conclusions are sometimes atrocious. For example, scientists trying to argue that infants are not human.

          • David Sims says:

            I’ve heard that philosophy often goes astray by asking what should be true, instead of trying to find out what the truth really is. I think that’s where liberalism came from, with the other parent being a failure to anticipate consequences of their (usually well-intended) meddling and/or a failure to understand what humans have insufficient power to change.

        • Jack says:

          Well, gee, did you bother to see that the info in the article was drawn from StatisticBrain, and absolutely contains general student results to SAT testing, which means at least some of those students will have used test prep materials, taken the test more than once, etc.?

          Where is your evidence that any other IQ to SAT relationship studies used any SAT data that actually met the criteria you claim is necessary?

        • BoomBoom252 says:

          An introductory course is not enough to understand the field (why you would think that, is pretty ignorant in itself). Besides, you’re missing the point. You’re not supposed to agree with the philosophers – you’re supposed to argue their points by using logical arguments. It definitely gets harder, from the reading of awkward writing, to the more technical arguments, to the actual use of logical tools (ie. truth tables, and more advanced logic).

          This reminds me of how a lot of Atheists (which I am) think they can win debates against well schooled theistic philosophers, only to get humiliated because they lack the skills philosophy gives them. Just watch William Lane Craig steamroll through Atheist PhDs left and right.

          • David Jenkins says:

            Craig would get crushed debating anyone with a deep physics background. That degree requires thinking a philosopher couldn’t touch, and he doesn’t have the background to debate actual scientific topics.

        • Strange Quark says:

          “until I found the greatest philosopher of the last 2300 years: Ayn Rand.”

          And this is where you lose all credibility.

          • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

            Her reasoning was impeccable but on the humanity side she was quite lacking. That is why philosophy isn’t a hard science but a humanity. He comes from a logical reasoning background so that makes sense.
            I think Nietzsche was the best as he had so much depth and used both reasoning and human behaviour as it is, which is by definition, a humanity, so it depends on what you look for in philosophy.
            It simply means lover of knowledge.

        • Michelle says:

          I know huh!!! Philosophy majors are the lowest of the low. If they haven’t a clue that their major will translate into zero dollars of earning power and that they will not be able to find employment, pay off their student loans, buy a house or start a family, how smart could they possibly be?

          • David Sims says:

            Thanks. The existence of philosophy majors is a good illustration of my point with Derek Diaz. Learning philosophy isn’t an especially good way to earn money, and yet there are people who do it. A maxim among philosophers is “pursue the truth for its own sake,” and it indicates that there are a lot of men (and, rarely, a woman—though note that no one is accusing you) who loves truth more than money.

          • Cody says:

            If you’re working on the premise that purchasing power is the highest ideal, then you’re correct. If you think there may be more to life than commerce and income, then you’re SOL.

            • Michelle says:

              I can work and earn a decent living that gives me leave to travel. Traveling gives me experiences in the real world which in turn, gives me leave to philosophize up a storm based on life experience as opposed to mere conjecture. A lot of people seem to want to be paid to think. Why shouldn’t we all be paid to think?

          • Vivian Li says:

            You’re erroneously equating the pursuit of earning potential with intelligence. They are wholly separate things. Not the sharpest crayon in the box, are you?

            • Michelle says:

              Actually, I was always about the third sharpest crayon in the box or the class, that is, if the class was an advanced one. If it consisted of average students, then, I was the sharpest. My daughter is the same. Though not geniuses, we are both in the “Distinctly Superior” catagory. So, insults against my intelligence, or supposed lack thereof, don’t bother me at all. Lay it on me, sister!

              • Vivian Li says:

                That wasn’t even the crux of my point. I don’t give a rat’s ass how you did in school. I was saying you seem to have an axe to grind against majors you deem to be “impractical”, while conveniently ignoring the fact that not everyone prioritizes earning potential to the detriment of all other things like you do. It’s beyond irrational to deny that some students simply choose to pursue their field of interest for the mere sake of education itself, and that this has nothing to do with their “intelligence”.

                • Michelle says:

                  Actually, I do have an axe to grind. A lot of people who I work with seem to think that they are quite underpaid. They do little physical labor and a lot of thinking. They want to be paid a lot for thinking. I think that they are already paid too much and I think that fruit pickers should be paid more than people who “think” for a living, unless that thinker is some type of engineer.

                  • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

                    So did the communist countries and millions of lives were living hell if not ended brutally to realise that’s ridiculous.
                    Someone has to think about the most efficient way to grow the fruit and get them to where they’re needed.
                    What’s the point of just randomly picking fruit without thinking about all the other factors that make up the reasons for picking fruit.
                    I think you are an ideologue. You don’t have ideas, ideas have you.

              • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

                The words don’t tally with the emotion emanating from them. You are bothered and you are very proud of your intelligence hence protective of any challenges to it.

                • Michelle says:

                  Actually, I addressed her point which is what you should do in a reply. Both you and she engage in speculation and assumptions about other people, whom you do not know. Typical overthinking on the part of high I.Q. types. She said I wasn’t the sharpest crayon and I agreed with her, but she was making a personal attack against me because she didn’t like my idea. It is typical of your kind to imagine that those who think differently from you are stupid. Not very open minded or philosophical really, in my humble opinion. It seems to me that any truly intelligent person would understand that.

                  Now here you are “Jumping in”, so to speak and continuing the attack. You and she are the ones, arrogant and prideful in your intelligence who want to believe that “thinking philosophically” is important, because you spend a lot of time doing so. I do too, but it doesn’t make the world a better place because I do so.

        • David Sims says:

          Ayn Rand has her failings, too. Like the Marxists she opposes, she makes the error of assuming that people are what people are not.

          The difference between Rand and the socialists is that the socialists pretend, as Rand points out, that people can behave as perfect altruists in the expectation that others will do the same. Which is nonsense, because it takes only one cheater to topple the socialist economy into the old tragedy-of-the-commons pit. And there will always be that first selfish cheater.

          Ayn Rand then makes the error of pretending that people can behave as perfectly rational actors, in the expectation that others will do the same. Which is nonsense, because humans have all kinds of motives other than rational ones. Humans always have, still do, and probably always will act upon emotion. Humans have always been, still are, and probably always will be vulnerable to manipulation, to ambush, to deception.

          Nevermind whom is John Galt. The better question is where his capitalist paradise in the real world might be found. It doesn’t seem to exist. And what excuse do you give that Marxists haven’t already used thousands of times to “explain” why there aren’t any stateless communist paradises?

          • Cody says:

            Glad someone mentioned this; I couldn’t have said it any better myself. Rational self-interest and altruism are equally naive.

      • Carrie says:

        The SAT, GRE, and LSAT have no — absolutely ZERO — relationship to testing/determining one’s IQ.

        If you have taken the Stanford-Binet, then you will have been told your IQ. I think you will find it is quite a bit lower than you are assuming.

        • TCS says:

          In reality, IQ tests are pointless tests that show nothing more than puzzle solving skills. Any modern use of them is based purely on racism and an ability to design tests that support the test designer’s biases.
          The world would be better off if all such tests, including the sat, ACT, ASVAB and SRA tests, and their designers were burned.

          • CP says:

            IQ tests are pretty predictive of income and success financially though; they definitely measure something that is translatable to real-world skill. And its no coincidence that some of the most important people historically (Scientists, moral philosophers etc) all had insane IQ’s. Most of our technological advancements and improved standard of living wouldn’t be possible. Heck even the feminist movement wouldn’t have come about without John Stuart Mill (170+ IQ)

            • TCS says:

              Any value form such predictions are dwarfed by the harms caused by the tests and the life changing judgements that are made based on the biased scores.

              • David Sims says:

                Your wrong, JSM. Any “harm” caused by hurting someone’s feelings is more than repaid by sparing that same person even more badly hurt feelings that would come about if you gave him a job that he cannot really do, and so he fakes it until he gets caught or does something that costs his employer a lot of money—and as the result is shamed and fired. An IQ test provides the test-taker will good counsel about what his realistic career choices actually are, where he can expect to succeed (honestly) and where he probably wouldn’t, and he’ll have the chance to make better life-changing judgments.

                And, no, the scores aren’t “biased.” We really aren’t all equals, and the gaps between groups in average IQ means exactly what it seems to mean.

              • Brad says:

                Well said. Quite correct you are.

                • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

                  Yes feelings are the best way to allocate important jobs. That’s why countries with high nepotism are the most successful…err oh wait.

                • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

                  Whatever makes you feel better. Intelligence is not a moral issue. There are other values that are as valid. It’s just IQ is a good prediction of how well someone does in a complex job. It’s not personal. It’s a natural characteristic that one cannot claim they achieved. It is just the way people are and we are all different.

              • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

                But tests evaluate how you retain knowledge, how quickly you solve problems, working under pressure etc. How else are we to allocate the important difficult jobs to the most appropriate person?

            • Dstar says:

              John Stuart Mill was a feminist

              • Dstar says:

                arriet Taylor Mill oct – Avignon, 3 November 1858) was a British philosopher and women’s rights advocate. Her extant corpus of writing can be found in The Complete Works of Harriet Taylor Mill.

                she is largely remembered for her influence upon her second husband, John Stuart Mill,one of the pre-eminent thinkers of the 19th century.

            • Mars says:

              Honestly how do you know John Stuart Mill’s IQ when he lived long before Iq tests even existed?
              Same for other famous scientists, their Iq scores are all estimates. We don’t know Einstein’s actual Iq and neither do we know Stephen Hawking’s. The Iq scores of Garry Kasparov and Judit Polgar are extrapolated from their ELO score and likely far too high.
              Some websites list Kasparov as having an Iq of 190. When given an actual Iq test he scored a good but not great 135.

              • Annonamice says:

                Actually, we now that Hawking scored a 160, and Einstein is estimated as between 160-190.

                Kasparov’s “not great” score of 135 indicates he’s more intelligent than only 99% of the rest of us, but certainly not as intelligent as that top-tier 0.70% above him. But yeah, his “good but not great” score puts him in the top one percent.

                • Mars says:

                  Do we know Hawking’s actual score? I believe it too is an estimate and was never made public

                  I know about Einstein, as I said we don’t know his actual IQ. It’s unclear to me how one would accurately estimate it even though his accomplishments indicate he might have also done well on an IQ test

                  Kasparov’s IQ is in the top 1% but his skill in chess was clearly better than a 1 in a 100 performance. Which indicates factors other than full scale IQ might be more important here, would expect he did very well in certain subtests

                • madihwa says:

                  Take the test under 30 or it has little meaning. Over 60 and a person’s test taking ability simply slows down. Over 70–forget it! I’m NOT taking any tests!

              • madihwa says:

                At what age did he take the test? This can affect the outcome. I know for certain that I did much better at 16 than I would now at 74–and that is despite learning 3 languages, reading over 300 books a year and having many hobbies which constantly use my brain.

                • poorboyhome says:

                  yes, but RETENTION of what you have read is based on a lot of things! The gray matter slips a little, and the synapsis is much slower!

                  • madihwa says:

                    Isn’t that basically what I just said? I don’t really seem to have slipped much yet but on anything requiring speed or some of those tests where they have tricky questions, well, truthfully, I just don’t have the patience for them. I can memorize as good as ever. Whenever decide I need to refresh my memory on Chinese characters, I’m still as quick as ever on that.

            • Tak Nomura says:

              I question your thesis that IQ is a predictor of income and financial success.
              I’m the second in a family of four children. My older brother became an attorney, my younger brother a doctor, and my sister an RN. I barely graduated out of high school, and started college on probation. I majored in Accounting with a minor in Philosophy. Got better grades in Philosophy, but did pretty good as an accountant. Went to work for Florsheim Shoes as a Field Auditor in the seven western states, and after 3.5 years was promoted to Audit Manager. From then on, I worked in management for the rest of my working career, did consulting work, and retired early. Traveled to over 80 countries, and now live comfortably in Silicon Valley, one of the most expensive places to live in the country.
              Six figure income here is on the low end.

              • Vivian Li says:

                My sentiments exactly – IQ has nothing to do with future financial success. I’ve met tons of well-paid banking executives, doctors, etc… who couldn’t reason out of a paper bag, and on the flip side, there are lots of highly intelligent people languishing in low-paid, dead-end jobs (who have the misfortune to be stuck there due to circumstances beyond their control, and/or they just don’t have the motivation to be ambitious).
                Even if there is a positive correlation between IQ and financial success, it is likely a loose correlation at best, and certainly not at all causal (e.g. there are many high-paying professions where people with higher IQs tend to concentrate, but not every high-paying profession requires/ attracts people with high IQs – hence the lack of a causal relation).

                • David Jenkins says:

                  A big problem with high IQ is the associated mental illness. I was tested in 4th grade(137 score) and at the age of 34(153 score). I have bipolar 1, and PTSD(though this was from a tour in Iraq in 2004).

                  I’m currently majoring in Materials Chemistry in college, about to take my final two classes, Pchem 2(quantum mechanics) and inorganic & aq metals. I’ve dropped out of college 5 times, racked up 70k in student loan debt(cancelled by dept of Ed when I was declared 100% by the VA).

                  Without my crippling mental illnesses, I’d probably have a PhD from MIT by now. As it is, I’ve only studied really hard for 4 classes in my major(Pchem 1, 2, org 2, calc 2, and a decent amount in calc 1)

                  Had to drop out during my final semester, retaking those classes this spring.

                  IQ definitely has a correlation with intelligence, I tend to hang out with fairly intelligent people regularly, and I can tell when someone with a low IQ within moments of talking to them. I don’t judge or look down on them, but it is readily apparent.

                  • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

                    Perfectly describes the phenomena. You can’t be successful in difficult subjects without IQ, but other factors can bring down your chance of being successful.
                    It’s an indicator of millions of data points.
                    You cannot be a successful phycist without a high IQ even if you are hard working, stress tolerant, open to new ideas, have perfect educational circumstances.
                    It’s a ceiling. You can only reach your maximum but many factors can reduce it, like lack of educational opportunities in high quality institutions and educators.

                • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

                  It’s about .7 which is huge in social science correlation. It’s as close to a prediction as you can get but environmental and other traits, openness, conciencousness, emotional tolerance, assertiveness etc.

              • arduino says:

                Your own anecdotal experiences have very little bearing on the success of IQ as a statistical tool. As a statistical tool, IQ is subject to all statistical phenomena – like outliers and averages. IQ does not claim to be any more than a statistical tool. It is not a 100% guaranteed predictor of anything. But it is a damn good predictor, on average. Look at it like this – you take a test and get a score. They then document what career path you take. That’s it. It’s just an observation of score and career path. This is done for thousands of people and a pattern emerges. Higher IQ students tend to go into physical sciences/engineering. Lower IQ tend to go into education. The pattern emerges time and time again. And of course with career path information, other things like income and financial success are directly related.

              • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

                One data point does not discount the trend. It’s taken over millions of data points and IQ has the highest correlation to success than any other by far.
                Hard work etc are also indicators but come nowhere near the correlation of IQ.

              • Kufir says:

                It wasn’t a thesis, but a HYPOTHESIS. Furthermore your family anecdote although interesting has nothing to do with statistical analysis,as that deals with LARGE numbers of people and the PROBABILITY that an individual will be fiscally successful. Obviously your accountancy course didn’t cover statistics in sufficient depth. Furthermore, the correlation between IQ and earnings has been established. However, High IQ does not guarantee high income, merely its liklihood, and lower IQ does not predict low income.for INDIVIDUALS, merely its level of incidence in a large population.

              • madihwa says:

                I don’t quite understand what you were trying to prove here. Sounds like you all did well enough with the RN being the lowest achiever. None of you is poor so how are the tests not a predictor?

                Actually I can see how they wouldn’t necessarily be. I just see your example being the proof. Your family proves the opposite.

              • poorboyhome says:

                so why are you retiring in an area that is drowning in inflation?????? Bet it is your children and grandchildren that keeps you there!!!!

          • Carrie says:

            One cannot intelligently make one claim of IQ tests'(*) being pointless while admitting an opposite claim admitting that IQ tests show puzzle-solving skills.

            I do agree with you that they tend to be quite biased in favor of whites and males who have achieved some degree of higher education than their non-peers.

            (*) Yes, an apostrophe belongs there.

            • TCS says:

              They are puzzle solving skills that are partly learned and that are geared towards the particular biases of the test creators.

              • CP says:

                ”I do agree with you that they tend to be quite biased in favor of **people** who have achieved some degree of higher education than their non-peers.”

                That’s the point though. They’re supposed to be biased that way. They’re measuring certain skills that make people more successful in education. That’s why all the greatest scientists and philosophers had unbelievable IQ’s. The whole point of an IQ test isn’t equality or fairness or some other b/s: they simply measure intelligence (or some proxy of it). And yes, intelligence is hard to define. IQ is ONE way. Not the only way.

                If I’m not mistaken, Chinese folk have the highest average IQ, and there are normally not significant differences in MEANS between men and women; so its hard to argue that IQ is biased towards whites and/or males.

                TCS: whats wrong with learnt intelligence? This is a criticism of IQ I always hear but can never fully come to grips with. If anything, the IQ test would show that a specific person is better/faster/more efficient at learning a specific set of skills with practice.

                • Mars says:

                  Should note the difference in variance between men and women that is often but not always found is also not large in the absolute sense. VR ratios usually between 1.05 (insignificant) and 1.20. The point is of course that small differences in variance can cause larger ones at the extremes. For VR = 1.20 the expected ratio of men to women 4 SD from the mean (IQ 160) would be 4.8 : 1

                • Tak Nomura says:

                  If income is an indicator of IQ, Asians as a group has the highest income. Also, Asians make up the majority at Cal Berkeley.

                  • madihwa says:

                    One reason for that is because California removed all quota rules for Asians which are sill enforced in other states. True, California DOES have a larger Asian population than elsewhere but still there wouldn’t be so many in the top schools if the quota rules hadn’t been removed. Of course, they DO still have to do better in order to win the spots.

                • madihwa says:

                  One reason Chinese are smarter (maybe the only one, maybe not) is because of the language. Chinese is a tonal language. Most languages only use one side of the brain. Chinese, having all those pesky tones, uses both sides. It makes people approximately 5 points smarter.

                  The characters also help but not in the same way & may not help in the future since in the future Chinese may not be writing characters–only reading them. They’re using their messed-up system of pin yin in order to make texting more convenient for their people. That apparently is the reason they changed it from the one (which was easier & more convenient for westerners) used in the 60s. I don’t know if pin yin will be allowed in schools. I certainly hope not!

              • David Sims says:

                Puzzle-solving skills require intelligence and practice to develop. Because the demands of public schooling (not to mention life in general) require practice, the ceiling on the development of puzzle-solving skills is usually intelligence.

                A good intelligence tests is created specifically with the intention of excluding bias. Some of them are don’t even require the test-taker to speak any particular language. These tests measure, as you say, puzzle-solving skills. And those are the SAME skills that someone who has an intellectual job uses all the time.

                • Donald Pauly says:

                  It would be interesting to devise IQ tests written by each of the five races of man, Negroes, Whites, Orientals, Jews and Aboriginals. Then give those five tests to the five races. Our IQ tests measure how well that you can think like a Jew. They poorly measure scientific and mathematical creativity.

                  • Richard Jones says:

                    What is the difference between a white supremacyst and a bag of concrete?

                    • Donald Pauly says:

                      Silly you! There is NO SUCH THING as a White Supremacist. Whites want to be rid of other races instead of ruling over them. There are 14 million Jew Supremacists however. 5 million of them are good Jews who have gone home to Israel.

                    • Richard Jones says:

                      Wrong answer. There is no difference, they are both just stupid sacks of $hit.

                    • Richard Jones says:

                      Nah, your both just stupid sacks of $hit.

                  • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

                    Yes but they predict how quickly and to what level you would be able to learn scientific and mathematic creativity.
                    It’s understanding puzzles, mathematics is word puzzles and science needs a tract thought which can be measured in IQ tests to a degree. Speed of thought is also essential. One might figure out a mathematical problem in a day when another does it in an hour. That’s productivity, speed of thought.

                  • madihwa says:

                    Hey, that’s a good idea! But, for god’s sake, stop calling my husband, kids, & others like them ‘Orientals’! They are NOT Orientals! How old are you anyway? Ninety?! They are Asians! East Asians if you want to get exact about it! Orientals is a very bad insult!!!! Listen to what Natalie Tran on youtube has to say about that!

                    • poorboyhome says:


                    • madihwa says:

                      Tran is a Vietnamese name. She is a girl on YouTube who comments on all kinds of things. She’s very funny. Once she commented on how some westerners called Asians ‘orientals’. It was very funny too. She lives in Australia.

                      I still wonder though, who on earth in the millennial generation calls anyone from Asia ‘orientals’? That was my parents’ generation–people in their late 90s or uneducated yokels living in the hills. Those are the only groups I’ve ever known who did this.

              • Brad says:

                Very true, and succinctly stated to boot.

              • Rachel Ramey says:

                Those skills can only be so learned; IQ tests can be administered to preschoolers.

            • David Sims says:

              IQ tests aren’t biased because “whites” and “males” had what it took to go farther in education than others did. Education is similar to an intellectual career in that it requires the student to use, and hence develop, problem solving skills. A group that had more intelligence can be expected to go farther in education. There’s no bias here. It’s two expected effects from the same cause.

            • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

              What about Jews and North Est Asians, they score higher than whites.

          • David Sims says:

            IQ tests are, indeed, “puzzle solving” tests. And that is precisely why they are not “pointless.” Most intellectual, creative jobs are puzzle-solving jobs. You get one puzzle after another: hour by hour, day after day, year upon year, until you retire. For me, once, it was figuring out which atomic and molecular radiators were in the spectra of an object entering the Earth’s atmosphere. Another time, it was figuring out—outside of school, all by myself—how to calculate the delta-vees for a transfer orbit having one (not both) endpoints of the intended trajectory at an apside of the transfer orbit. Yet another time, I was told to blur a digitized image by Fourier convolution, and I had not yet, at that point, learned the routine—so I had to learn it, pronto. But that’s the character of sci-tech research jobs, and, in fact, for most intellectual jobs, though the illustrations might vary.

            • Randy Curtis says:

              D. S. I suppose it would be interesting to know my IQ. I’d hope to break 80, on an IQ test as well as on the links. I have a situation and a request for a solution for which I don’t even have the tool box let alone the tools. The fact that I figured out how log on to this site and leave this message without my FB peeps reading this was pushing my problem solving skills. I’m currently reading a couple of theology books. One by NT Wright. I squint and move my lips while reading. That’s just to read it. Comprehension is something altogether different. Wright does have an incredible mind. Problem. You’re driving to a destination, you’re tired, it’s 2300 hrs and some knucklehead behind you is bright-lighting you or he has the blue kryptonite bulbs. I’ve been there. I want sights on my side view and rear view mirror to shine his light back into his face. How do I do that? Thanks in advance.

            • poorboyhome says:

              alright you have convinced us that you have a lot on the ball!

          • Rachel Ramey says:

            They aren’t pointless. They are more narrowly-applicable than generally believed. They measure a certain type of intelligence, and as long as they’re used within that context, they can be helpful and relevant. Attempting to extrapolate them to *everything* is probably not very helpful.

          • Gustav le Tocqueville says:

            Wow. Just wow.

          • Kufir says:

            Careful, your political bias is showing.

          • poorboyhome says:


        • David Sims says:

          Performance on the SAT and other standardized tests that have are g-loaded are indeed correlated with performance on IQ tests. My IQ as tested by Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (May 2007) was 133. My SAT score during my senior year in high school (1978) was 1240, which corresponds to IQ 131 in the conversion tables. Pretty close, I think.

          • David Sims says:

            Oh, by the way, people LIE about their scores on IQ tests and academic tests. The lies someone tells about his own mental ability are usually more egregiously false than are lies about penis size. For example, a Jewish girl decided to try an show me up by claiming she got a score on the Tickle IQ test (an online IQ test that was popular some years ago) of 152. The maximum possible score was 144. I’d gotten 142 and had said so, when Little Miss Sarah told her lie. Incidentally, that test inflates people’s IQ scores by about 10 points.

        • Brad says:

          It always amazes me that so many pseudo-intellectuals still believe that the SATs, etc., necessarily correlate with IQ.

          • Donald Pauly says:

            Pseudo-intellectuals doubt that correlation which is beyond argument just like the law of gravity.

        • madihwa says:

          Actually I think what you should have said is ‘not to assume that this is definitely your IQ’ as tests are never definite or thorough in their results, do not cover every type of results and that their actual IQ could be what the test says, lower or even higher. There’s no reason to assume that it’s DEFINITELY lower. And no, I have not, as far as I can remember, ever taken the test. Just being logical about the whole thing. If they can’t assume this test is written in stone, they also can’t assume it’s not.

      • John Andersen says:

        Some people also develop later as their frontal lobe enlarges. Thus the reason so many geniuses do not go Ivy League etc. They can not find the true talent in time. Also tests are easier when you know the instrument well… As was stated.

      • Michelle says:

        Nonsense! The highest I.Q.’s are held by math geniuses. Physics majors are way smarter than Philosophy majors. Everybody knows that!

        • David Sims says:

          That’s true. In philosophy, you can sometimes bridge uncertainty with opinion. If you ever hear a philosopher using the nasty word “should,” that’s probably what’s happening. With physics, you can’t. If physicists did it, then the engineers who believed any incorrect physics opinions would build things that didn’t work, or hurt people, etc.

          • Michelle says:

            Leftists have the belief that people should be paid for thinking. I visit a small dog park from time to time. There is a cliquish group of people who bring their dogs on the weekend and sit around talking about politics. The leader of the pack is a lawyer from NY. She is in love with Hillary and loves to despise the Donald. She usually runs the conversations. So, on Sunday she brought up Obama, whom she also adores and I mentioned that Obama and his wife insulted waiters by saying that they had been “Mistaken” for wait persons by “people” at certain functions. “People” who were not aware of being in the presence of greatness, obviously. Anyway I said that it was no shame to be a waiter and that being a waiter was often harder than being a President. Well, lawyer lady reamed me a new one. One of the few male members(no pun intended) asked me if I would like to be mistaken for a homeless person! It is, of course, a grave insult to be thought of as a waiter and especially a “Black Waiter” any of whom should be doubly ashamed! “Being a President is harder than being a waiter, lawyer lady claimed, you are on 24 hours a day”. “Yeah, but not on your feet”, I replied. Personally, I think that neither Obama or Hillary have ever held a real job, but I am sure both of them are very philosophical!

            • SugaDad says:

              None of them are for sure very philosophical. You have absolute no clue about what you are talking about.

        • SugaDad says:

          And yet the data contradicts your childish claim. “Everybody knows that!” Wow, you really are dumb as a rock.

      • Jacob says:

        you took “like” 5 practice tests? wow- that sound like like like…smart stuff

      • Rachel Ramey says:

        Interestingly, I have been told that SAT scores are unlikely to change much with retesting, but mine did — considerably — the second time I took it.

    • Lilyrose says:

      Mathematics is a form of philosophy.

    • democrat CockRoach says:

      And the “Darwin” theory is the horses’ ass of science.

  24. Graham Ketteridge says:

    We should clearly end women’s suffrage

  25. Matt says:

    None of this takes into account the actual number of people in each job. The majors that are closer to even, gender wise, skew lower than the trend would suggest. This data seems to show a correlation between IQ and major more so than IQ and gender. Lower IQ females gravitate towards certain majors, but that says nothing about where lower IQ males end up. They may be more spread out as males are encouraged to a wider variety of majors compared to women. Historically women are discouraged from entering Science, Math, Engineering, etc. majors. This results in only the most motivated and intelligent women pursuing these majors which skews that data higher. Nothing contained in this information indicates causality, just a random assortment of data.

  26. Sarah Ametxa says:

    HAHA WOW!! This is wild!

    My current major is Pre-Engineering that’s 6 blasted semesters of MATHEMATICS!! 6 Physics classes, 4 chemistry classes 4 electrical engineering classes to name a few!!

    ” The higher the estimated IQ, the more quantitative the major (with Philosophy being an odd exception), and the less women enrolling in those majors. Many women tend to avoid mathematics due to social stigma, lack of exposure during childhood, etc., and this fact is ultimately reflected in their SAT performance.”

    I do what I can to optimize myself. For the longest time I’ve had the wrong perceptions on math. In the past I dislike math only because I had poor self image in my own abilities to master mathematics and I didn’t have the motivation or support from my peers to enable me to be confident in mastering it.

    Now my perception has changed I like that doing math problems creates new neural pathways and expands cognitive capabilities in the brain.

    I came back to NYC to enroll @QCC to achieve my #1 goal: Improve my Metacognition in Mathematics. I’m doing so by obtaining my associates degree in Pre-Engineering.

    • Erik Ponce Morales says:

      Who cares…

      • asdfds says:

        There’s something to that post we all should care about.

        It is eminently feminine, from top to bottom.
        Of course, the poster wasn’t aware of that (this might have a tad of womanliness to it too), but I find it interesting.

        • Rachel Cote says:

          Using “womanliness” and “feminine” as descriptors and then adding, “but I find it interesting” as if it being in any way related to being a woman automatically makes it worse.
          Yeah, there’s no reason that women don’t want to be associated with intellectualist fucks like you.

      • Brad says:

        People with high IQs care, that’s who.

    • wgone says:

      You forgot to attach you CV and personal contact information.

      • Carrie says:

        She did not forget; she purposely omitted it so that no saxofsh!t would stalk, harass, and threaten her for daring to be female and online at the same time.

        That’s nothing like “forgetting”.

        • Laura says:

          Yeah, it’s amazing how men can put forth their anecdotes about their observations of how women are, but if a woman dares to talk about her own experiences, it’s “shut up”.

          • asdfds says:

            Not easy not to derive at least a bit of amusement from the fact you aren’t aware each and every of your words end up strengthening the very points they are intended to gainsay.

            It’s like shouting to a mirror “you are wrong! What you show is false!”

          • Rachel Cote says:


    • jenab6 says:

      I don’t believe a word of that “social stigma” excuse-making. In my high school, lots of girls were pleased with themselves to get good grades in math. Of course, the best of the boys was better in math than the best of the girls, but the best of the girls was pretty good and happy to be that way.

      The thing about touting yourself online is that, unless you provide documentation that others can check out, which at the same time makes you vulnerable to identity theft and stalker abuses, you might be lying your ass off. I could, for example, tell you that I was the STAR student in my 1978 high school senior class, that I double-majored in physics and astronomy in college, that I worked for the USAF (at the Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB) as a sensor data analyst – celestial mechanic – electrical engineer and then for a research company defense contractor in Huntsville Alabama as a physicist – missile defense system evaluator. But I could be lying, and I haven’t told you enough to check out my claims. Making those claims was a waste of time, yes?

      • Rachel Cote says:

        Yeah, that doesn’t look like clear fucking gender-based social stigma in this very post by intellectualists to me. It’s all fabricated. You win.

  27. Ronald Roma says:

    Kudos for including R^2 values. But please please put them on the graphs. Don’t make me match them up later.

    Basically all you’ve said here is that high achievers in math at age 16-17 go on to major in mathematical fields. Big whoop. Everyone already knows that boys do better on the SAT math.

  28. Mike says:

    Men and women have about the same average IQ.

    However, they differ in the amount of within-sex variability in IQ scores. There are many more men than women at both the bottom and the top of the IQ score distributions. The greater proportion of men at the very high levels of IQ can explain the trend.


    • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

      Yikes. Your link uses IQ testing from the 1930s, before women/girls were really valued for learning much beyond sewing. Women today are surpassing men on IQ tests! Men still hold the lowest rankings on the tests by even a bigger margin than before, but females’ IQ are beating men’s routinely in modern-day analyses of the tests.

    • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

      Yikes. Your link uses IQ testing from the 1930s, before women/girls were really valued for learning much beyond sewing. Women today are surpassing men on IQ tests! Men still hold the lowest rankings on the tests by even a bigger margin than before, but females’ IQ are beating men’s routinely in modern-day analyses of the tests.

  29. Sweden as a bad example says:

    @Randy Olsen

    A naive reader may look at this graph and conclude that men are smarter than women, but it is vital to note that, on average, men and women have about the same IQ.

    No, Mr. Olsen, a non-naive reader will conclude that women are inferior, because this result reconfirms what every man sees with his own eyes: Women are inferior and it shows in nearly every test result, whether IQ tests (women score 5 IQ point lower on the average), knowledge tests (women score even worse), income tests (self-employed women earn half as much as self-employed men) or car driving tests (women have 5.7 accidents per million miles, men only 5.1) and so on.

    Nearly the only tests where women are better than men are tests that have to do with babies or cleaning, for example face recognition or sensitivity to smells.

    I guess you added this statement about “naive readers” because you are afraid that in the current climate and the current degree of femastazation of academia it’s wiser to not point out politically incorrect facts. After all Lawrence Summers was fired for completely harmless remarks.

    • Dan says:

      Stop generalizing and while you’re at it, take a Logic 101 class. To address one of many bad points you make, it is not a fact that “women are inferior” to men. Some women are inferior to some men by some measures. Some men are inferior to some women by some measures.

      You, for example, are certainly among the men in the latter statement.

      • Sweden as a bad example says:


        >Stop generalizing

        Learn the difference between “Dogs have 4 legs” and “All dogs have 4 legs”.

        • Dan says:

          > Learn the difference between “Dogs have 4 legs” and “All dogs have 4 legs”.

          This is why you need a logic class. There is no difference between the two. “Dogs have 4 legs,” without any modification, means exactly “All dogs have 4 legs;” it does *not* mean “Most dogs have 4 legs” or “Dogs on average have 4 legs,” despite the way the language is misused colloquially.

          Meanwhile, both equivalent statements—”Dogs have 4 legs” and “All dogs have 4 legs”—are false, in just the same way as your previous generalizations are false.

          • Sweden as a bad example says:

            >There is no difference between the two.

            Oh, I see, the word “all” has no meaning.


            Was nice talking to you, Dan, which stands for “Danielle”, I suppose.

            • Dan says:

              > Oh, I see, the word “all” has no meaning.

              Add another straw-man to the list of fallacies you’re racking up.

              Of course “all” has meaning. In this context, it simply adds nothing extra to the proposition “Dogs have 4 legs.”

              Your arguments are “inferior,” to use a word you like.

              • alysdexia says:

                No, without a qualifier in-line or -context the stative can take any distributive whether “all”, “some”, or even “few” or “none”; the plural is short for a singular compound distributive “each” or “every”.

          • Ryan says:

            OMG TOLD!

    • A says:

      Troll harder. Look at the comments for more than a second and you’ll find a good amount of explanations for the trend seen here. A difference of IQ in 3-5 points, which found in meta-analyses of many studies (in some of which women score higher than men) does not indicate any large scale patterns capable of explaining the above graph. Even more so, the higher variability of male IQs has been suggested (and when it’s possible, tested) as an explanation for this observed difference. Fewer men are tested in IQ studies, and these are often self selected – only those who are already in the upper half. Cherry picking random “tests” in which women perform worse is a hilarious tactic; men also have much higher rates of dyslexia, why not throw that in as another inferiority of women?

      I also love how you have decided that facial recognition is clearly something only needed for child care, and sensitivity to smells only for cleaning (how long do you think humans have lived with any form of cleaning and hygiene?). By the same token, I’ll declare that male driving performance is only needed to flee from crimes, and IQ tests are only needed for the mental gymnastics of sticking your head so far up your ass that you can ignore the world around you and pretend that “women are inferior”

      • Sweden as a bad example says:


        >Look at the comments for more than a second and you’ll find a good amount of explanations for the trend seen here.

        Yes, you can explain it all away. Just like Star Trek fans and bible worshipers explain all Snafus and inconsistencies away.

        That’s what White Knights in science do, too.

        “Oh, it’s not female inferiority, it’s just because X, Y and Z”.

        Yet study after study comes in and it shows a clear pattern: Women are inferior. No amount of White Knighting can help you with that.

        >Cherry picking random “tests” in which women perform worse is a hilarious tactic; men also have much higher rates of dyslexia, why not throw that in as another inferiority of women?

        I know that men are more represented at the lower ends of tests, but that is misleading.
        First of all homeless men do not balance out the billionaires.
        And second: Even the retards are useful and can dig a hole. And who cares what the IQ of George Michael is? Even if George Michael had an IQ of 80 he would still be a good music composer.

        Women on the other hand (even the high IQ females) are nearly always worthless, and if they are not worthless then they have less children, hence are detrimental to the gene pool of future generations.

        >I also love how you have decided that facial recognition is clearly something only needed for child care.

        Which I never stated.

        I stated that the nearly the only tests in which women outperform men are tests that are needed for baby handling or cleaning or similar.

        Women are designed by nature to be less intelligent (too much brain power wastes energy needed for lactation etc) and are designed to stay at home and do monotone tasks like cleaning babies and cooking.

        So to clarify my statement: Women are not inferior as such, just as men aren’t superior as such. Women are SUPERIOR baby washers, lactators, floor cleaners etc. and men are inferior baby handlers, but are superior scientists, artists etc.

        Women’s desire to sleep more, to suffer from scoliosis, to be more cowardly, to be less intelligent, to have weaker bodies, to have periodic belly cramps and so on are actually superiorities because they help women to be better stay-at-home moms.

        • A says:

          Didn’t try hard enough.

          >That’s what White Knights in science do, too.
          Because, you know, you can make science say whatever your agenda is, and not just give you clear results. Clearly never done any science, huh?

          >Women on the other hand (even the high IQ females) are nearly always worthless, and if they are not worthless then they have less children, hence are detrimental to the gene pool of future generations.
          Clearly no understanding of the gene pool or how distribution of reproductive effort works.

          >too much brain power wastes energy needed for lactation etc
          Lactation, staying at home, etc. are all far less energy intensive than say, going out hunting, or constructing things or even just developing the extensive amount of muscle men do. By your own logic men should be significantly dumber than women.

          Keep sticking that head up further your ass, but I don’t think it will help with your lack of understanding of how logic or science work.

          • Sweden as a bad example says:


            >Because, you know, you can make science say whatever your agenda is, and not just give you clear results.

            The results are clear: Women perform worse. You are the one who doesn’t want to accept that this is not some funny glitch but is simply the consequence of women being inferior (or rather: consequence of women being the superior stay-at-home sex).

            >too much brain power wastes energy needed for lactation etc Lactation, staying at home, etc. are all far less energy intensive than say, going out hunting, or constructing things or even just developing the extensive amount of muscle men do. >By your own logic men should be significantly
            dumber than women.

            Re-read your nonsense, maybe it will dawn on what a White Knight you are.

            • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

              I’d say things only go down once women infiltrate because we men stop working. If it weren’t for women’s efforts during the wars, we’d have lost every battle.

          • A says:


            >Claims women need to save energy for “lactation and etc.” so can’t be smart
            >Men need more energy just for natural development than women do
            >Doesn’t see how by that logic men should be dumb as shit

            Go back to /pol/

          • Sweden as a bad example says:


            > Go back to /pol/

            Thank you for reminding everyone that there is far more freedom of speech and far more contest of ideas at 4chan than in science.

            By the way that’s partly because of the high influx of women. Every area goes downhill as soon as women infiltrate, whether science, politics or education.

            You know why.

            • A says:

              People circlejircking is hardly “more freedom of speech and contest of ideas”.

            • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

              I’d say things only go down once women infiltrate because we men stop working. If it weren’t for women’s efforts during the wars, we’d have lost every battle.

        • Mike Hanson says:

          *cough* resentful virgin *cough*

          • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

            Heyyyyy, they are called “Incels” (for involuntary celibates). Although yes, they are virgins and no doubt resentful…

          • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

            Heyyyyy, they are called “Incels” (for involuntary celibates). Although yes, they are virgins and no doubt resentful…

        • Rachel Cote says:

          It must be hard being so unbearable as a person.

        • Rachel Cote says:

          Finally, someone understands my need to conserve brainpower for the purpose of lactation.
          Someone give this guy a Nobel prize.

    • alysdexia says:

      Cite these IQ tests and any tests that came after. Which knowledge tests? Are these tests rated by capita?

      You forgot language, memory, stamina, multitasking, pain tolerance, multidiscipline.

      /Breeding/ is harmful to the future gene pool.

  30. Terrymac says:

    I’d have to see the distributions to make this definitive, but the tendency of men to greater variance could explain this pattern. A person with 110 IQ would probably struggle in math or physics. My guess is that a 130 IQ would be needed to feel comfortable in that territory – so how bad is the skew in the 130+ realm?

    As for amelioration of math anxiety – several women have told me that Montessori-based approaches were much better than “traditional” approaches. I could say a lot about math instruction, but it would become tl;dr.

  31. James says:

    Since high-IQ is (by definition) rare, a large number of people in a major should correlate to a lower average IQ. Given an even IQ distribution by gender, but women gravitating to more popular majors, this chart is accurate (but misleading). I think you’re seeing a dual self-selection of a few smart males choosing science majors, while large numbers of males and females from across the spectrum distribute to the other majors.

  32. Longhorn says:

    Why are you correlating choice of major (free will) with SAT scores (intelligence)? And why are you focusing on one gender? This is not only hasty, but it’s faulty, and it begs the question of intent. You’re a computer scientist. You should not be posting correlational studies and inviting the public to form untaught assumptions about gender and education. These issues belong to the field of psychology.

    • A says:

      I think he is inviting the public to think about the cause of the correlation, not claiming anything beyond that.

      As an aside, “begs the question”? Doesn’t that mean it’s a circular argument? Sorry, not a native english speaker, just confused as to how you would think this is circular.

      • Dan says:

        “Begs the question” is a commonly misused phrase. It really means “assuming the consequent,” or, as you put it, engaging in circular reasoning. It’s been misappropriated by the masses, however, to mean something like “prompts the question.”

    • CP says:

      Well, most psychologists, and in fact even more neuro-scientists, do not believe in free will. Choices are constrained by multiple variables.

      Consider the following: someone with an IQ of 150 who loves math might reason that not doing physics would be a waste of his or her talent. Meanwhile, someone with an IQ of 110 might reason that becoming an economist would be too much work and pressure, and that they’re better off elsewhere. Of course this relationship is not necessarily conscious; a person might not know their true IQ score but can still sort of judge how well they rank relative to the competition. Not to mention, the 110 IQ person might apply for a physics/economics program and be rejected. It seems to me then that IQ is probably a good proxy to help explain choice.

  33. George Gale says:

    If, as many recent thinkers have held, mathematics follows from logic, then philosophers are not “an exception.” Rather, their high score follows from the priority of analytical logic over quantitative subjects.

  34. anonymous says:

    Can I request a plot that shows the IQs of all comp sci PhD candidates and a highlighted dot for where you fit amongst this? along with an anova test to show the significance of the trend and 3 peer reviews (one in statistics, two from comp sci) to confirm the approach and findings?

  35. Jason Zimba says:

    I think you should make this a bubble chart, because the number of physics/astronomy majors is minuscule in comparison to other majors.

    The most natural explanation for the top chart would be that smart women tend to choose more randomly among majors, while smart men tend choose from among a few.

  36. andy says:

    While avoiding stereotypes and gender bias based on iq, id hazard a guess that with the ratio showing lower iqs show a direct correlation to sat scores, id say toward the lower end of the profession chart, those jobs are more emotion based than logic based, and id like you to argue in a general sense women tend to think emotionally over logically? Im not saying some women dont think logically and some men dont think emotionally, but maybe this plots something thats intangible.

  37. Jim Clark says:

    We need separate plots for males and females to interpret this, as well as numbers for each major. Smaller numbers for certain majors would itself introduce different average IQs if aptitude is part of the selection.

    Interestingly it appears that high female majors at the far right include a lot of education students. Perhaps would vary across cultures.


  38. anonymous says:

    Randal, here’s recent (2011-2013) data on GRE scores by intended graduate major from the ETS website itself:
    The table starts on page 30. Hope this helps.

  39. NotANumber says:

    Perhaps, I should wear a tag with my SAT scores, GPA, and major.
    Sorta “Gattacaa”-lite version of the movie. Saves time from
    the three questions or dog butt sniffing for dominance at parties
    and bars:
    1. School
    2. Job/Title
    3. Car/Where live

    Yeah, good times.

  40. Amol says:

    Several commenters are using your IQ vs. %Female trend to argue that college men must be “smarter” and have systematically higher scores. That is not correct at all. It is possible to explain this trend without assuming any male-female IQ (or SAT) score difference. Suppose that:

    1. male and female students have the same distribution of SAT-Quantitative (SATQ) scores (i.e., Gaussians with the same mean and variance);

    2. men have a stronger preference for quantitative majors; and

    3. quantitative majors have some sort of admission cutoff (such as the ability to pass a “weeder” course) which is correlated with SATQ scores, so that only high-SATQ students are allowed into these majors.

    As a qualitative example (“toy model”), consider the extreme case that women have no preference for quantitative majors, while men have a very strong preference such that all men with sufficiently high SATQ scores choose quantitative majors. Then quantitative majors will have (i) all high-SATQ men and (ii) only those high-SATQ women who choose these majors. Non-quantitative majors will have (i) those high-SATQ women who choose them and (ii) all low-SATQ men and women. It’s clear in such a scenario that quantitative majors will have both higher average SATQ scores and more men, while non-quantitative majors will have lower SATQ scores and more women, even though men and women have exactly the same distribution of SATQ scores.

    As for why women might have less of a preference for quantitative majors, it could be that a misogynistic society systematically pushes women away from these majors, or that the culture within these majors is more hostile to women. But the upshot is that the trend you found could be explained entirely by differences in preference between men and women (possibly influenced by cultural misogyny) and not differences in intelligence.

    • XorFish says:

      Fact 1:
      There are 33-50% more women than men on college.
      Fact 2:
      Men are represented more at the extreme ends of the IQ distribution.
      (There are more men than women with an IQ-score below e.g. 80 or above 120)
      Fact 3:
      Only 30% of all men and women graduate.
      Only the part with the highest IQ-score of a demographic graduate.

      With the Assumption, Fact 1 and Fact 3 we can determine that we have to compare the top 24-26% of men and the top 34-36% of women.

      If you add fact 2, it is pretty clear, that the average male college student is more intelligent than the average female student.

      Concidering this, it is important to be aware that that conclusion doesn’t tell us anything about an individual men or women.

  41. Geoff says:

    The first graph is extremely misleading and does not explicitly prove men are smarter than women but instead compares two independent (I think) parameters; Avg. IQ vs. m:f ratio.

    All you can confidently conclude is that e.g. Physics & Astro. have the highest avg. IQ and there’s a trend throughout the disciplines and, that the m:f ratio is lowest for Physics & Astro with a similar trend throughout the disciplines.

    Importantly: the avg. IQ score is discipline dependent and not m:f ratio dependent. It is conceivable for a high percentage female Physics class to exist and you would assume their avg. IQ higher than other disciplines because they take Physics.

    There needs to be a future study conducted on high female percentage classes to verify the aforementioned.

    • Geoff says:

      Future study: conduct an IQ test for every University Physics class in the country and their m:f ratio. Plot.

  42. LOL says:

    Lots of hurt feelings in here. It’s really as simple as the fact that men as a whole are smarter than women. Didn’t need a scientific study to know that.

    • Dee Doubs says:

      They are also stupider as a whole if that makes women feel better.

      • Raymond Martin says:

        That makes no sense. If it were on the whole then there wouldn’t be men above women at the higher end of IQ. But there is, about 3-4 times as many.

        • Dee Doubs says:

          Alright, you see how you are looking at the higher end of IQ? Ok, cool. Now do the same thing for the bottom end of the chart where men also outstrip women by similar numbers. That’s what I mean by they are both smarter and stupider as a whole.

          • TheOneManWithTheOneVote says:

            The numbers aren’t really similar.

            While the bell curve is symmetrical and would normally mean the same number of dunces as geniuses, that fact that the average female IQ is five points lower than the average male IQ means that the distribution, compared to females, shifts the curve so that there is more high IQ men and fewer low IQ men.

            • Guest says:

              Yes, pet. Go ahead and Google the article “Women Surpass Men In IQ, But Are Other Factors More Important?” to find out who is scoring higher on IQ, not EQ tests.

              This site won’t let the link come through, dearie, otherwise I’d have made it more simple for you to click on it.

              Explaining it is something you’ll probably need someone else to do for you, as I am not the best at dumbing things down for others to comprehend.

              • TheOneManWithTheOneVote says:

                Couldn’t be bothered. I’m pretty sure I’ve pointed out EQ is the product of a marketing man making a buck out of flattering women after he stumbled over an unpublished thesis in NYU.

                And, for my part, I don’t lower myself to debating with neurotic schoolgirls. You’re idiots and once I descend to your level, you’ve got me on experience. My IQ is 147. To someone like you, that’s incomprehensible. After all, if a 30w bulb could illuminate like a 100w bulb, it would be a 100w bulb. But you, ducky, are the dictionary definition of dim. I find it’s the limiting factor in stupid people, this inability to comprehend that there are intelligent people and – combined with the cheap cocaine you people abuse – it goes with an undeserved self-confidence. You people bore me, talentless, empty husks that you are.

                But what the hell, let baby have her bottle.

                • Guest says:

                  Of course you can’t be bothered, because educating yourself is a bother! Realizing that you were fully incorrect is a bother! I’m glad I never babysat. You people and your crybaby, foot-stompy widdle attitudes turned me off from the start.

                  No, your 147 IQ is not incomprehensible. Mine was measured at 151 when I entered University at 16. At 22, while pursuing my second PhD mine measured at 166. So, again, your supposed IQ is not so much incomprehensible as it is quaint. As in, “awww, an IQ of 147. I remember the silly teenager clothes I wore back then.”

                  If you ever want to improve your IQ, you can read the link of how women in fact score HIGHER on the Stanford-Binet IQ tests. Or you can remain quite clearly ignorant by not advancing your knowledge. I bet I know what widdle, foot-stompy is going to choose.

                  • TheOneManWithTheOneVote says:

                    My, an IQ of 151 and you’re ignorant of how neurotic you are. Google ‘projection defense mechanism’ and seek help, you babbling jackass.

                    God, you ooze stupidity from every pore, parroting all the things other posters have said to you like a lobotomy case with Tourettes.


                    Clearly, you don’t qualify as meeting the standard for meanest intelligence. Now you can throw a tantrum and toss insults around but it doesn’t change the fact you’re a neurotic with an inability to face her limitations.

                    I realized earlier today what broken toys you people are. Given the means to be the best you can possibly be, something you’ve been insisting on for three generations, you merely aspire to be men. In a world that gives you every unfair advantage, you still shriek men are being meeeeaan to you because they are better at being men than you are.

                    Now, we really are done here. You are incapable of being interesting.

                    • Guest says:

                      Ahh, your blather delights those of us who look far down upon you. Do go on projecting. Do go on throwing out impotent little insults that are clearly better shrieked into your mirror every time you pass one.

                      Because, again, your blather delights those of us who look far, far down upon you.

                  • TheOneManWithTheOneVote says:

                    OMG! You insane cow. I can’t believe you’re so insecure you’re upvoting your own posts. That is so sad the word ‘pathetic’ just doesn’t do the job. What a loser!

                  • Carrie says:

                    You’re lucky you got to respond to that joker. Its posts keep getting removed by moderators more quickly than I could respond to them.

                    Maybe they had a good talk with it and explained the rules of civil society, or as civil as one could expect online.

              • DisqusStu says:

                Patronising much? Aren’t you capable of intelligent debate?

                EQ is pseudoscience. Like multi-tasking, it’s a pacifier for anxious, depressed, inferior, bitter, second-rate women.

                Sane women can deal, but people like you, crazy as a box of frogs, just hurl abuse like rhesus monkeys flinging their faeces round the lab.

              • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

                WOW. I don’t “do” Twitter, but I am definitely tweeting that article out! I always knew women were smarter than us 🙂

                • wgone says:

                  Boy you are really busy this evening on the keyboard. Mr “i get all the pussy i can eat”. How is that SIMPing working out?

          • asdfds says:

            I had typed an extensive riposte to your… very cute observation, but then the voice of chivalry made itself heard.

            You sounded cute after all, why send that reply?



            • Dee Doubs says:

              So realistically speaking you read what you typed and realized you sounded like an idiot responding to something over a year old. Gotcha.

      • Brad says:

        And no IQ tests would even be needed to illustrate this.

    • Morgan says:

      If you were an intelligent person, you wouldn’t have made that remark. :p

    • wgone says:

      Except that psycholoists are doing something to even the score – they are promoting the myth of emotional intelligence as just as important. Funny women are the least empathic of the genders unless you consider that they feel for the fellow women, and have no consideration for the average male (no matter how nice he is) and considers him a “creep”.

      • TheOneManWithTheOneVote says:

        ‘EQ’ is the product of a marketing man desperate for a good idea stumbling on an unpublished thesis in NYU. It’s hokum that HR likes because HR is all women and they don’t do well on IQ tests.

      • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

        Anyone who knows what emotional intelligence would of course know it’s as important. But what are your thoughts on the fact that women are now surpassing us on IQ tests? So now they win out on IQ AND on EQ.

      • Samet says:

        wether it is more or less important could be argues easily but woman have higher EQ’s and their verbal and linguistic skills I believe also surpass those of men so nature is not taking a massive dump on woman…

      • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

        Anyone who knows what emotional intelligence would of course know it’s as important. But what are your thoughts on the fact that women are now surpassing us on IQ tests? So now they win out on IQ AND on EQ.

      • Rachel Cote says:

        Says the creep, I’m sure.

      • Brad says:

        That’s not a “myth” they’re promoting. What with robots taking over men’s jobs, jobs requiring emotional intelligence will be the only ones that still pay.

        Start being nice to your female overlords, or else they may decide to be even less benevolent to us than we’ve been to them!

    • Rachel Cote says:

      “I, ‘LOL’, as an anonymous person and without any apparent authority on the subject, don’t need a scientific study to show that this really controversial view that isn’t in any way even close to being appropriate, proven, or or even remotely compelling is somehow absolutely and unarguably true”

  43. dave says:

    And when interpersonal and social intelligence is measured, these charts would be inverted.

    And when linquistic intelligence is measured, these charts would be skewed hard to favor the right middle.

    The charts here are strictly based on test of logical intelligence, but psychology has classically defined nine categories of intelligence.

    What a joke.

    • Dee Doubs says:

      Wake me up when you find reliable tests for gauging all those categories of intelligence. Then maybe we can start charting those things. In the meantime you are just blowing smoke up people’s asses.

  44. D says:

    Grouping things in such a way somewhat misrepresents the data. For instance, imagine a thought experiment/scenario where there are 3 majors (A, B, C), which have average IQs of 130, 120, and 110, respectively, and have the following percent females: 20%, 50%, 80%. (Giving you a very clear inverse relation). Let’s say the women within each category are always at the top of their major. For instance (chosen to make mental arithmetic easier), class A has female IQ of 160, male IQ of 122.5, class B has female IQ of 150, male IQ of 90, class C has female IQ of 110, male IQ of 60. This means that the average female IQ is 130 and the average male IQ is about 103, within this theoretical system. Such a thought experiment corresponds to the scenario where a woman has to be far better than a man to enter a particular major. For instance, a woman might be more likely to drop out of a technical major if they have a GPA of 3.2, while the “failure threshold” for dropping out might be a 2.7 for a man (I think I read that this has been shown in some engineering schools). Considering that most of the girls in my compsci classes had top marks, I think this is not an unreasonable model…

  45. Kevin S. Van Horn says:

    “Many women tend to avoid mathematics due to social stigma, lack of exposure during childhood, etc.,”

    How do you know this? I keep on seeing people make this claim, but nobody ever backs it up with any evidence.

    I have to wonder how much of it is just that men and women gravitate to different interests. I have two daughters who both completed calculus in high school with A- to A grades. They got plenty of encouragement from me — I really enjoy math, and I have always shared my enthusiasm with my children. But neither of them seems to have any real interest in math or mathematical subjects, and they both chose majors in the humanities. This is, of course, just a single anecdote, but it is representative of my observations over the years.

    • noregret says:

      It’s instinctual! See documentary Havjernask Brainwash made by a Norweigan comedian. It’s free if you google it. This is the first section, the “gender equality paradox” and makes these people look flat out STUPID.

    • lulu22 says:

      I will assume that many girls had their self esteem killed. I remember at a young age my dad told me girls are bad at math. I later heard the same idea repeated by others. I can’t tell you how much self doubt that comment gave me about math for all of my school years. Even though my sister and grandmother were great at math, I still internalized this stereotype after having heard it. Although I had an appreciation for math I could not fully enjoy it because I had such anxiety about my own capabilities. Boys do not have to go through this kind of self doubt because nobody ever proclaims that boys are innately bad at math. It’s much easier to learn something when you have confidence, or rather, are not fed doubts before you even get a chance to have a good try at something. Promoting a stereotype of “girls/boys suck at (insert anything here)” is a great way to kill their interest and curiosity for the subject, create low self esteem towards the subject, and in this way it can actually become a self fulfilling prophecy.

      Now, despite my dad killing my mathematical self esteem and curiosity at a young age, I eventually put in a serious attempt at learning more advanced maths and realized I am not bad as I thought, and neither are advanced maths impossibly difficult, once you understand the rules. Most math is pretty straight forward, following rules and sequences. I can see why some people find that boring, but the applications of it are what make it interesting. I am interested in the application of math in statistics, geometry (architecture and 3D modeling) as well as chemistry, genomics, etc.

      • Guest says:

        I’m, happy you were able to overcome the forced myth that girls don’t like/can’t do math.
        Congrats 🙂

    • Samet says:

      It isn’t social stigma woman are better with their verbal communication and surpass men easily especially with their EQ however men are scientifically proven to on average have better spatial awareness which translates to a better understanding of mathematics, you notice there are more women in biology classrooms than chemistry and physics and men typically do better for a reason in chemistry and physics. It is just the way we function on average we are better and worse at certain things, nature is not equal and the greatest inequality is to make unequal things equal. In the biological sciences though women are on par if not better than their male counterparts

    • Rachel Cote says:

      “‘Many women tend to avoid mathematics due to social stigma, lack of exposure during childhood, etc.,’

      How do you know this? I keep on seeing people make this claim, but nobody ever backs it up with any evidence.”

      How about this: I as well as many other women have experienced it, shared our experience, and on top of constantly having to prove that we’re on par with our male peers, also have to prove to absolutely random men who, even after hearing numerous testimonies from countless women, wonder how to prove whether or not social stigma is a legitimate reason why women don’t join STEM majors.

      My evidence is my life. Take it or leave it, but stop pretending as if the word of thousands upon thousands of women is somehow a claim and not a clear symptom of an absolutely existent issue.

      • Brad says:

        Men tend not to believe women about women’s lives, women’s opinions, or women’s experiences. We’re quick to mansplain that if something doesn’t happen to US, it probably doesn’t happen to anyone else either.

        I hate to say, but whites do the same to/about blacks. Whites don’t experience life as blacks do, and we often poo-poo blacks’ claims.

        Come to think of it, I can think of all my friends (who happen to be straight) and recall how none of them believe gays have any “real” problems, that gays are just dramatic and need to learn how to calm down, like that will mean gays and straights suddenly all get treated equally fairly everywhere.

  46. Anon Ymous says:

    SAT to IQ conversion seems to be off. Here is a good site for SAT to IQ conversions:


    The smartest major, physics and astronomy, have an average SAT score of 1270. This seems plausible. However, your source converts that 1270 to an IQ of 133.

    As the source I provided above shows, the actual conversion of a 1270 SAT score to IQ should be 128-130 depending on the IQ test you use.

    Because this post is about the relative IQs of majors, this doesn’t actually have any impact on your argument. But, it is important to note that it seems there was an error on the part of the source when converting SAT to IQ.

    My suspicion is that it has something to do with how they handled selection bias. Of course, I could be wrong.

    Overall, though, good post.

  47. Jim says:

    It might be OK to believe the first graph. There are objective measures there which we can take as fact (The fields of study and gender balance). That leaves IQ which is a number based upon testing. Perhaps males are simply doing better at the tests and that might be explained by something other than innate difference in intelligence. There might be multiple factors that bias male ability to score better on these tests than females. I propose (and not from a position of PC) that these are natural and understandable. All we need to do is identify and prove their effects. For example (and I believe there are many more) there is an expectation difference imposed upon males that differs from that imposed on females that statistically says “the buck stops here guys”. From childhood, many males and fewer females are socialized to understand their role will be as a provider and not a providee. I contend that the female is much more likely to understand one of her options is to attach to a male for support. The result might be more vigorous preparation by males to conquer what is tested, based upon their perception of having fewer options to serve in a dependent role.

  48. Tony Lima says:

    I’d be interested to see the interactive graphs for verbal and quant SAT, too. But you’re probably too busy dealing with comments!

  49. Did you actually calculate a correlation coefficient for the verbal score? Eyeballing it, I would have said the correlation is still there, just weaker than on the other two graphs.

  50. Camden says:

    Also, it’s been shown repeatedly that boys are systematically discriminated against by female teachers, which clearly damages their education. When pupils’ work is blind-marked, boys do better than girls in every subject – a lot better in maths and science and a bit better in English and Biology.

    • Carrie says:

      Actually, it’s only been “shown repeatedly” on the boards of misogynists’ rights activists’ (MRA) websites. Girls have a much tougher time from teachers & students than do boys. In fact, in all-girl schools is the place where you’ll see much higher grades and scores for girls, because in mixed schools they have to put up with xxxx from boys and teachers.

      • Pragmatia says:

        Do you have studies that represent data that validate this conclusion of the assignable cause? If not, you have just displayed your gender bias, which ironically legitimized, to a degree, Camden’s comment.

      • TheOneManWithTheOneVote says:

        Utter rubbish. God, you people have no shame. You distort people’s research and think that you can get away with it. Everybody knows that it’s the girls’ own estrogen that predisposes them to anxiety and depression and causes that effect. In the presence of boys, they become, as nature intended, submissive.

      • DisqusStu says:

        MRA is the recognized acronym for Men’s Rights Activists, your personal issues notwithstanding.

        As far at the rest of your comment goes, typically, you incorrectly believe a statement is a fact. It doesn’t. A statement is merely a statement. You don’t have any supporting evidence so the comment can just be dismissed as an expression of your neurotic nature. QED.

        • Carrie says:

          Go to AVfM sometime. They proudly acknowledge that the M stands for misogynist, and that they (MRAs) exist for no reason other than to FTSU (F women’s shtt up). Even Dean Esmay, who is a prominent supporter of MRAs, very truthfully asserts that the MRA website, AVfM, exists solely to support Paul Elam, proud and very vocal misogynist.

          Check your facts before trying to claim they are facts. And if you are too busy to check facts yourself, be prepared to pay your researchers to do the research for you.

          The facts still stand, and your refutations still fail.

      • CP says:

        Incorrect. There has been research in Canada and Northern Ireland by actual university professors that support the claim that boys are heavily discriminated against in school and that these differences begin pretty early.

        Maybe the reason girls do better in all-girls schools has to do with them not feeling intimidated by the opposite sex. It’s a well observed phenomenon that men and women tend to perform less efficiently if members of the other sex are around.

        This doesn’t in and of itself disprove discrimination against boys in the education system.

        • Carrie says:

          I cannot find any such research you mention. Not only that, when I go back to the misogynists’ rights activist websites to read their variations of your claim, even they cannot cite sources that you all claim exist.

          The only “discrimination” boys may face is not actually discriminatory against boys… it is discriminatory against students who behave unprofessionally in class or otherwise disrupt the learning process. Yes, acting up, waving one’s arms for no reason, making fart noises beneath the armpit when the teacher bends down to pick up chalk, and so on are all so very hilarious… but they are going to get a student discriminated against if they do not learn for what school solely exists — to learn and to advance skills needed for life.

          And just so you know — girls act up in class too, and always have. But when the teacher punishes the girls, they learn something from it; the boys who get punished for bad behavior just become enraged that their privilege was usurped by someone who dares to believe s/he is his superior.

          “Boys Will Be Boys” has for too long excused bad behavior as acceptable behavior. Unacceptable behavior will get a boy (AND GIRL) “discriminated against”. If you can instead focus on learning and grading, boys are giving all the latitude and girls are presumed to be less competent even when their grades show otherwise. Meanwhile, boys who score poorly on their work still get passing grades, just so they can graduate even though they have not achieved that right. Boys are praised for being “smart” while girls are praised for being “attentive”, regardless of the veracity of the claims.


          • CP says:

            Hi Carrie, I’ll post some links, then I’ll respond.




            (the switch from O-Levels – mostly exam based – to GCSE’s – coursework based – is clearly hurting boys who tend to be less organized)





            (there are plenty more. Go on Google Scholar, and google – ”discrimination against boys schools”).

            You cannot find such research because you are too biased to look, or automatically assume bad intentions from your opponents, who you gleefully dismiss as ”misogynists” simply for taking a position that is supported by evidence that you dislike.

            Your assertion is incorrect. In some studies PISA scores are actually compared with high-school scores. The boys do better in maths for example in PISA, but their high-school grades are often around the same as girls’. I didnt post it, but a study in india found that teachers are highly likely to mark against what they expect. So if they expect boys to do well, they’ll bias their marking against them. And visa versa. PISA testing, by the way, is done on some of the brightest – children who arent disruptive.

            Your second assertion is also likely incorrect. Boys love to be aggressive. I know this, because i used to be a teenage boy. Of course, we don’t love to fight or get hurt, but we love rough play. This is why we love sports. And yet all throughout school i noticed boys being discouraged from partaking in what is natural behavior (within limits of course). The other reason boys ”don’t learn” from school is because they REALIZE THAT EDUCATION IS STACKED AGAINST THEM. I’ve literally seen a male student tell his female teacher ”You should quit your job. I don’t think I’ll ever learn anything from you.” Do girls say this to their teachers? No.

            Feminists love to tell us that male behaviour is toxic. That somehow loving logic, math, and not giving a shit about other peoples’ emotions is TOXIC. Surprise: it isn’t. Arguably the greatest educational achievements ever made can be traced to a certain Isaac Newton, who exhibited all these traits. We wouldn’t be having this conversation with that toxic masculinity.



            • Carrie says:

              I went to each — each — of the links you provided and can honestly compare your claims being “backed up by” those links in much the same way one could claim that Jooz and Blaxx are evil/dumb/dishonest and then post links to the Daily Stormer as my evidence. And yes, Misogyny-based links are a stance I am biased against. You might do well to learn what misogyny actually entails (hint: it is not technically the “hatred” of women”).

              “I’ve literally seen a male student tell his female teacher ”You should quit your job. I don’t think I’ll ever learn anything from you.” Do girls say this to their teachers? “ … Not if they’re decent girls, no, they surely wouldn’t. Even if a girl student *thought* such a rude and unacceptable thought, she has been conditioned by society to shove it and let it fester, rather than speak up in her own defense. I would hope to live long enough to see that change.

              “Feminists love to tell us that male behaviour is toxic” Nope, they sure don’t love to tell us, them, or anyone else in existence that male behaviour is toxic. Toxic =/= male, and I’d get that guilty conscience looked at were I you. I hope this photo doesn’t get bogged down in moderation, as I’d hate to manually type it out, but it’s the closest smackdown I can think of for your fallacious claim (or outright lie) about feminism equating maleness with badness. Feminists have a set of things they don’t like; and I’ll use this hashtag for good here: #notallmen.

              • CP says:

                Wow, you’re basically saying: ”If science doesnt confirm to what I already believe, then I will not believe it.”

                I posted 5 academic papers, 2 BBC articles and Huffington post article. As far as I know none of my sources are misogynistic.

                Even if a girl student *thought* such a rude and unacceptable thought, she has been conditioned by society to shove it and let it fester —> This is not a rude or unacceptable thought. Saying that it is contributes to the societal conditioning! It is actually a very important and telling thought. A student has the right to walk out of a class and tell his teacher he/she are shit at their job if they want to. And in so doing, it’s pretty obvious that the student is having a terrible educational experience. Why should we hold students back from expressing frustrations at school? (this guy was 14-15 when this happened).

                I’ve heard feminists say that masculinity is toxic though, even on national television.

                Feminists have nothing ”I don’t like”. They have a set of positions/beliefs which, in many cases, do not hold up to scrutiny and are not supported by evidence. When I gave you evidence, you rejected it due to its origin. This is a logical fallacy. Until that happens, fewer and fewer people will take feminism seriously.


                PS: your link is not a smack down at all. It contains no facts. No numbers. Its just another claim ”hur there is no man-hating in feminism” which is unsupported by evidence. There is definitely a subsection of feminism which is misandrist. The fact that the movement keeps failing to address issues which affect men **cough cough such as discrimination in schools** is evidence of this.

              • Paine says:

                Every guy that has ever gone to school will agree girls are being treated way better than boys in schools.

                I also like how you did not answer CP because you have no arguments.

                • Carrie says:

                  No. You are committing the lazy-but-common fallacy of claiming that just because you and your circle would say something, then ALL would say that same thing. (I watched a LinkTV program on child sex tourism, wherein the pervs talking to the undercover guy each stated “every man on the face of the Earth would be xxxing these little beauties if the laws weren’t written to be so anti-man”. They were speaking of eight-year-olds in a Thai brothel. I choose to believe they each were committing your lazy-but-common fallacy. ALSO: I do not link anyone or anything to the ilk who seek out prepubescent victims, so please keep that accusation out of this.)

                  Now then… my husband & I adopted more children than you’ve got toes. On any given day, we’ve got between ten and 30 kids racing around our home. The consensus among boys is that girls get treated like crap by teachers and by older students. Some of the boys stated they were happy they weren’t girls (for that reason). They asked me why we didn’t put our girls into all-girl schools where they would get “treated ok because there were no boys”. When a boy gets treated poorly by a school or teacher, it’s a total sin. All hell is raised. When it happens to a girl, she has to shut up and take it. It’s sadly training girls how to be women: shut up and take the shit dished to you, or else no job for you.

                  I realize that the MRM has spread the rumor that victimhood is sooooo delicious and that it should be claimed at ever turn (especially if it FTSU), but it rings too false. Facts and reality defy the claim that boys get treated more poorly than girls. Boys DO raise a louder fuss when a grownup dares to hold him accountable, yes. But this does not translate to them actually being treated less well than girls are.

                  Lastly, I like how you think I didn’t respond to “CP”. I like your imagined excuse even better. Put some whipped cream on top and I’d just about love it.

                  • Paine says:

                    Yes you did not respond to him. He destroyed your argument using academic studies. Deal with it, he had the last word. I honestly feel sorry for your husband, if you even have any.

                    • Brad says:

                      “Destroyed”? Seems like you got things a little backward there. Of course your “last word” comment reeks of an impotent challenge for someone to please come back and show you more attention, a challenge that was wisely ignored.

                      How many husbands do you think she has, “any”? Literate people would’ve put “one”, not “any”.

                    • Paine says:

                      Yeah thanks for correcting my English, I probably typed it too fast. I still don’t understand how does that make me illiterate though.

                  • CP says:

                    ”The consensus among boys is that girls get treated like crap by teachers and by older students.”

                    I don’t care what the ”consensus among boys” is really. I only care about data, and you have yet again failed to provide any evidence for this claim. I provided academic evidence to show that there is discrimination *in grading* for boys that girls don’t experience.

                    And *grades* matter a lot more than how someone is treated at the end of the day. Being treated well won’t land you a place in University (which is what the OP is about). Good grades will.

                    ”I realize that the MRM has spread the rumor that victimhood is sooooo delicious and that it should be claimed at every turn”

                    The feminist movement has also done the same thing.

                    ”Facts and reality defy the claim that boys get treated more poorly than girls”

                    Which facts? Which reality? Do you actually have anything to back you up?

                    You really didn’t respond to me. You haven’t posted a single academic or even journalistic article to support yourself. All you’ve done is post some pink-fonted meme as if that lends itself to great argument.


                • asdfds says:

                  Is none of you realizing that is a parody account — a formidably entertaining one at that — for real, or you keep up the humour?

                  I wonder.

                  • CP says:

                    It is probably real knowing the modern SJW retards.

                    • Brad says:

                      Yes, because wanting justice is just so retarded. I hate justice, especially for those who are my inferiors: blacks, women, gays, children, poverty-stricken, foreigners, mentally ill, the homeless, all other non-privileged.

                      Eww, just typing them out by name made me shudder. Yeah, screw all of them!

                    • CP says:

                      Wanting justice isn’t retarded… creating a Black Lives Matter movement focusing on white people who kill blacks when black on black violence is a far larger problem is retarded though. Focusing on a ”wage gap” while misinterpreting statistics is retarded.

                      Blacks, women, gays, children, foreigners, them mentally ill and the homeless aren’t my inferiors and they shouldn’t be yours either.

                      Maybe if you stopped calling them your inferiors and actually started treating them equally I’d take you seriously.


                  • Brad says:

                    Really, what do you base this on?

                    I see it has followers but I can’t seem to become one.

              • asdfds says:

                All my life I have wished, willed, to have an intelligent female by my side.

                But the days when I’ll read posts like this and believe they are actually by a woman (and, well, start developing attraction) are far gone.

                There’s something unmistakable, that differentiates the sexes.
                And it’s far from being resumed and expressed by IQ gaps in the high-IQ part of the curve.

                • Brad says:

                  How old are you? Sorry for the potential rudeness of the Q, but I am autistic and your statement makes less sense to me than most.

          • CP says:

            Look up Philip Oreopolous. Or go read the war against boys by Christina Hoff Sommers. I`m sure she lists all her sources at the end. Seriously, your being unable to find any research on what is a pretty well accepted claim in public economics is, if anything, more representative of your faults.

            “Yes, acting up, waving one’s arms for no reason, making fart noises beneath the armpit when the teacher bends down to pick up chalk“

            No, ACTUAL DISCRIMINATION where boys get lower grades than women, have less chances of entering university, and are far likelier to drop out. The system is not ideal for them.

            ”Meanwhile, boys who score poorly on their work still get passing grades” [citation needed].

            Why are they getting poor grades in the first place? That`s a far more interesting question. Maybe because the level of teaching is not up to par?

    • DisqusStu says:

      Yes, and research also shows that both boys and girls trust male teachers’ grading more. They perceive them as fair.

      • Guest says:

        Research also shows that when controlled studies have women doing 30% of a mixed group’s speaking, both males and females perceive women as doing more than fifty percent of the talking. In movie scenes, when the background extras are 25-30% female, males and female viewers perceive the male/female split to be 50/50. When women are 50% of the background actors, males and females perceive women to be the majority, when in fact all perceptions are provably false.

        So much for perceptions equaling reality. But you keep on clinging to that like Linus and his blanket.

        • DisqusStu says:

          I’ve never read such rubbish. It’s not even remotely related to the topic, you moron. Seriously, you pick on the word ‘perceived’ and go galloping over the sanity event horizon.

          And just because you don’t like what I had to say, you start ‘following’ me on Disqus. Well, I got the mods to put a stop to that, you psycho.

          • Carrie says:

            Wow, someone disagrees with you = psycho. Interesting, and very telling. I don’t know what sort of passionate love affair you two have going, but I have “a follower” on Disqus and the mods said there is not one thing they can do about it. Even if a follower is harassing the living shtt out of you, Disqus monitors will do nothing but suggest you give up your account.

            Oh, also, you yourself are quite fond of doing the things you just chewed your little follower out for. Just thought everyone would enjoy the irony after watching your full himsterical meltdown.

        • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

          I have observed this so often myself, even when *I* am the one guilty of the faulty perceiving/perceptions. I often wonder if this anti-female bias society has will lessen or will it somehow worsen. Judging by the chimps on this comments section it’s getting worse for women daily.
          I pray my mum never meets any of these losers.

  51. Peter says:

    Those charts just look like made by Fox news.

  52. Alex says:

    What about a plot of IQ spread per field. It seems to me that IQ is good at measuring the skills necessary for math-intense sciences, but is it a generally useful measure of “intelligence?” So if we find, overall that the same fields dominate the upper end of the IQ bracket, then the plot vs. gender distribution is pretty moot.

  53. Dee Doubs says:

    > http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/georgeriches/2006/12/04/variance.gif

    Holy crap, it’s almost like if you culled the bottom seventy-five percent of the chart that you’d realize that the average IQ across the entire population isn’t important… only the sizes of the populations that are able to perform at a level necessary for completing a given major.

    • David Sims says:

      Yep, that’s right. And it’s a principle that is more generally right than you’ve claimed. As all of the easy discoveries, all of the basic principles, all of the preliminary groundwork has been done and published, it becomes ever more difficult to contribute meaningfully to the sum of human knowledge. As time goes by, higher IQs are (usually) required to do the cutting edge work. Wherever extraordinary intelligence or wisdom are required for satisfactory performance, the mediocrities matter no more than the retards do. Sometimes I wish that humanity could fly like a rocket: when you get to MECO, separate the darn first stage dammit, and let the rest of the rocket fly on without the dead weight.

      • Mike says:

        Not to cool that you use the term ‘retard’ considering that mentally retarded people can’t help that they were born that way. Maybe if you were a little less arrogant, less intelligent people wouldn’t be prone to develop an attitude towards people of higher intelligence. The higher the i.q, the more of a minority. Why do you think the label ‘ADHD’ exists? It’s no different than any other minority and people like you give smart people a bad rap. And, by dead weight, does that mean you have no qualms with flipping your own burger, washing your own car, painting your own house, doing your own dry cleaning, replacing your own septic system, cutting your own hair, etc? Sounds like you have case of “I haven’t accomplished anything in my life and I’m little peeved about that, so I’ll over-compensate by badmouthing people of lesser intelligence”. I think even smart people would consider someone with that mentality as a looser. Don’t attempt to solve humanities problems with creative solutions, just be vulgar and barbaric about it. Nice job! Who’s the retard? You are the disgrace to our society, not the ‘retards’.

        • Wayne Sims says:

          I don’t really care whether you regard my use of “retard” as cool. I’ll choose my own terms, and it is sufficient for me that they convey my meaning accurately and succinctly. I’m not interested in making allowances for butt-hurt, politically correct or not.

          In the context of my earlier comment, it doesn’t matter that mental retardation isn’t something for which the retards may be blamed. The truth of what I said does not depend on mental retardation being anything that it isn’t.

          In fact, I do “flip my own burger.” I’ve done all my own cooking for the past 20 years. By not eating out, I save much money. Or, rather, I have saved much money. The prices of the raw materials, on account of inflation, has got to the point where I spend as much for unprepared food as I once did for prepared food.

          Likewise, I’ve washed my own car for years. I’ve done ALL my own housework, major and minor, for years. I live in the West Virginia hills, and out here we know how to do those things. I came out here to retire. I’ve raised goats. I grow apple and pear trees.

          While I was working, I’ve been a physicist, an electrical engineer (signal processing), a US sensor data analyst, and a celestial mechanic (military applications). What have you done to compare with this?

          Your mistake is to assume that each person’s problems are also each other persons’ problems. The fate of the retards matters not at all to me. Indeed, if mankind must fail in numbers, in quantity, then the right thing to do is to preserve its quality, as measured by ability. When the time comes when “society” (meaning productive people) can no longer carry the dead weight of people who don’t produce, whether the reason be sloth of stupidity, then the weight will be dropped. The only thing wrong with that is that it wasn’t dropped sooner, before it had to be dropped perforce.

          • TheOneManWithTheOneVote says:

            Bravo! People who pick my words for me get a metaphorical kick in the fork from me too. The arrogance of them.

          • Jim diamond says:

            ‘Celestial mechanic’ sounds like a title for a wizard or metaphysician, certain for not a person developing ‘military applications’ (all though you do look strangely wizard-like!)

          • Jim diamond says:

            also, if by ‘retards’ you mean people who have schizophrenia or bi-polar related disorders, then you need to explain why there’s a strong correlation between having these conditions and achieving creative excellence (especially among poets, authors and playwrights)
            Interestingly there’s also a strong correlation between scientific creativity and achievement and unpleasant character traits (e.g. arrogance, hostility, and coldness)…

        • alysdexia says:

          “to”, “looser”.

          It’s the retards who aren’t cool. They harm themselves and everyone. They fill the world’s prisons and churches. (I define a retard as anyone below +1 sigma, 115 IQ, or 84% of the world. Google police IQ and IQ occupation to see who qualifies.) Do you want a random (normally distributed) world or a world where everyone is good at everything? There must be social and legal revolts to achieve that end.

          But it’s strange for the intellectual Wayne Sims to retire in a state that’s hugely full of cretins…

          • Rachel Cote says:

            So, what is your solution then? Eugenics? Or just bitching about it on the internet and pretending as if your performed intelligence somehow excuses your sociopathic worldview?

            • alysdexia says:

              I care about everyone; therefore I’m not a sociopath unlike these retards. Yes, kill them off, don’t allow them to breed. Any new children who may be born shall be much happier.

    • jkl says:

      Except of course women are surpassing men on the IQ tests now.
      Don’t worry though, the fellows are still number one at the lowest end of the IQ scale, as they are in your outdated graph as well.


      • Dee Doubs says:

        You realize your article is entirely focused on the average IQ right? The chart above is concerned with variance and if you were to slide the pink line 1 point to the right you would still end up with a situation where the second standard deviation above the mean for the population as a whole is dominated by men.

        The whole point of bringing up that chart in the first place is that STEM majors are composed almost entirely of individuals are are 1.5 or more standard deviations above the average. Looking at averages is meaningless for figuring out the pool of people of a given gender are going to be able to actually do the work.

      • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

        WOW. I don’t “do” Twitter, but I am definitely tweeting that article out! I always knew women were smarter than us 🙂

      • asdfds says:

        You’re going to hear women have surpassed men in physical strength soon. Do your best, and believe that when the time comes.

    • jenab6 says:

      The fraction of a race, f, having an average IQ of x̄ and a standard deviation in IQ of σ, which is above the minimum IQ of μ.

      f(μ) = ½ − [σ√(2π)]⁻¹ ∫(x̄,μ) exp{ −[(x−x̄)/σ]²/2 } dx

      Suppose that for Race #1,

      And that for Race #2,

      I define the IQ Qualified Ratio as IQQR = f₁(μ)/f₂(μ). The IQQR is the ratio of the fraction of Race #1 having IQs above μ to the fraction of Race #2 having IQs above μ.

      For μ=110, IQQR=13.8
      For μ=120, IQQR=54.4
      For μ=130, IQQR=289.1
      For μ=140, IQQR=2057
      For μ=150, IQQR=19530

  54. Kennon Gilson says:

    Provocative article. But Randy, RE: ” The higher the estimated IQ, the more quantitative the major (with Philosophy being an odd exception),…”
    IMO nothing odd there except likely people not being aware of what goes on philosophy or confusing it with religion/people taking philosophy as a ‘hobby’ or self-enrichment second major. Most serious philosophy major programs in the US presume you’re well-versed in both theoretical and applied calculus III, statistics, a systems course, and mathematical proof theory. That’s basically a math/engineering minor.
    When the Libertarians finally convinced the SATS and GRE’s in a letter-writing campaign to separate philosophy majors from religious studies, the GRE verbals and logic of philosophy majors blew everyone out of the water, and their maths are right up there with engineers. No surprise; philosophy majors who don’t go into teaching/scholarship/arts/computers are preferred to go into top law, business, medicine, where the typical IQ is 150+. My understanding is they also tend to be serious multi-majors e.g. philosophy and economics, math, psychology, history.

  55. Mo321 says:

    I am a 56 year old electrical engineer my life experience tells me that women are MUCH more emotional than men, women LOVE to feel their emotions, and LOVE work where they can share their emotions with others and others can share their emotions with the woman NOT MATHEMATICS! Men love quantitive subjects. Even in every day conversation men and women talk differently Men will ask quantitive questions – how fast can it go?, how many gigabytes is it? etc Women ask feelings and emotions questions How do you feel?, does he love her?, Which one do you enjoy the most?
    Society wants to convince us that men and women are essentially the same, but my life experience has taught me that men and women are very very different

    • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

      Women express their emotions… instead of killing themselves.
      Doesn’t that tell you who is smarter? We kill ourselves because we are too stupid to share or let out our feelings. It is better to be smart and alive than stupid and suicided.

    • disqus_bLQYf8KPTD says:

      Women express their emotions… instead of killing themselves.
      Doesn’t that tell you who is smarter? We kill ourselves because we are too stupid to share or let out our feelings. It is better to be smart and alive than stupid and suicided.

    • farah says:

      and you think “true men don’t cry “had nothing to do with it

  56. asdf says:

    the gender thing is caused in my opinion similarly as with part of the gender salary gap by women tending to ‘cluster’ in fewer majors/professions

  57. David Sims says:

    Men are mentally superior. Hear them excuse themselves for their poor showing, claiming that “stigma” keeps them from making higher scores in math. Ha ha. Phooey. Nobody’s going to believe that load of baloney. If a woman has a chance of showing men up bigtime, she’s going to do it. The most likely reason the women don’t perform as well as men do in math is BECAUSE THEY CAN’T.

    • DisqusStu says:

      Read the rationalization of the woman calling herself ‘Guest’ on this board. She is completely unhinged. She appears to get fixated on one word that offends her and goes on a rant.

      I, for one, find such deranged people terrifying.

    • Rachel Cote says:

      I’m going to take a screenshot of this, frame it, and then I’m going to run it over with my car.
      I really, truly, honestly hope you get fucking cancer.

      • David Sims says:

        Is that the best you can do as a reply? Heh. Of course it is, you female you. I mean, you could have offered to best me in chess. Or prove that you can solve a differential equation that I can’t solve. But no. Your inferiority galls you. My pointing it out wounds your pride. So you express vindictiveness, spite. How typically distaff you are.

        • Samantha Stephens says:

          That really was very good!

          I’ll be giggling for the rest of the day.

          I hate feminists. They’re so silly.
          I love deeply intelligent men.

          • David Sims says:

            In another post, Rachel said that she “almost” accepted a career opportunity with a sci-tech firm. I thought that was pretty funny. I worked for a sci-tech company before I retired, and I don’t think Ms. Cote could do the work that I once did. There’s just no telling when a sci-tech company employee will need to learn, in a week or less, something that would be taught in a course in graduate school. Like blurring a digitized image by Fourier convolution, or calculating radar probabilities of detection/false alarm from ambiguity diagrams, or figuring out how to find departure and arrival delta-vees of transfer orbits that aren’t Hohmann transfers. Someone who isn’t quick enough on the pickup ends up getting fired. At least, if you’re a white man that’s what usually happens.

            • Samantha Stephens says:

              I have no idea what you are talking about.

              I mean, after all I’m just a girl.

              I love saying that!
              It should piss off a ton of feminists.

              That equals about three of them.

              What you said about getting fired if you’re not quick enough on the pickup – I’ll just bet that never happens to women does it? …no matter how incompetent they are.

              • David Sims says:

                It probably happens less often to female sci-tech employees. The reason is Affirmative Action, which often gives women the favored status that racial minorities also get.

                In practice, there are more men than women in sci-tech jobs. The reason for that is that, although men and women (of the same race) have about the same average IQ, men have a higher standard deviation in IQ than women do. Relative to women, a smaller percentage of men are in the middle hump of the bell curve, and a higher percentage of men are found along the low and high tails of the distribution. There are more male morons than female morons, but there are also more male geniuses than female geniuses.

                And that’s an advantage for males. The advance of science and, more generally, culture, long ago surpassed the level at which the average human could make meaningful new contributions. For time time now, and probably forevermore, the mediocrities will matter no more than the retards do.

                But career politicians in a democratic government must get votes to keep their jobs, and everyone’s vote counts equally. That means neither the best leaders nor the wisest policies will ever prevail over whatever else it is that the mediocrities want. And what they generally want is more than they deserve, such as jobs they can’t really do, and status that they didn’t earn, and rights that somebody else must pay for, etc.

                The bulk of the Affirmative Action problem in sci-tech companies, though, isn’t women who are placed above their highest level of competence. No, women generally find positions that they can actually do, from the standpoint of the work expected of them. Most of those positions are clerical, or security, or personnel, or marketing. The sci-tech work, the number-crunching, theoretical stuff with the tough math, is mostly done by the beta males at the bottom of the company hierarchy. The alpha males who “run the company” (i.e., play golf and otherwise schmooze with the alpha males in other corporations with which theirs does business) use the women to distance themselves from the betas.

                Rather, it’s racial minorities who, through Affirmative Action, sometimes find their way into sci-tech jobs that they can’t do well, if at all.

                • Samantha Stephens says:

                  Thank you for answering so intelligently.

                  There seems to be a great number of brainwashed feminist shrews on so many blogs. Women, (and some men) who are to indoctrinated to face simple, logical truth.

                  I would love for you to read an article on “Thought Catalog” entitled “5 Legal Rights Women Have That Men Don’t,” followed by the comments, which prove to be shall we say “interesting” – particularly from some of the more radical feminist readers. I can well imagine your responses to some of these idiotic remarks.

                  A particularly virulent feminist troll by the name of “Carrie,” who also goes by the screen name “Brad” has commented numerous times on this piece.

                  Your rational, perceptive, and knowledgeable responses to her/his ill informed snark would be amazing.

      • David Sims says:

        Hm. My reply to Rachel seems to have gone missing.


        Is that the best you can do to answer me? Of course it is, you female you. You could have demonstrated your intellectual merits by offering to best me at chess or by proving that you can solve a differential equation that I can’t solve. But you didn’t do any such thing. I don’t think that I need to ask why not.

        By the way, Rachel, I’ve made you something of a poster-girl for feminist-leftist smarty-pants retorts. Your death wish is so very typical of the remarks that liberals use when they’ve lost an argument. I’m sure that you’ll be proud to be remembered by history as my case-in-point.

      • David Sims says:

        Prove me wrong, Rachel, by answering this simple question correctly.

        Two point masses M₁ and M₂ are initially at rest and separated by a distance, d. They are in vacuum and isolated from all forces except their mutual gravitation. How much time elapses between the instant at which the separation, r, is d/2 and the instant at which r=d/3? (Note: this is a classical mechanics problem; you need not take general relativity into account.)

      • David Sims says:

        You didn’t care for my challenge? I was generous enough to give you a chance to prove me wrong, but instead you (or anyway somebody) called for the removal of my post. But it would only be fair for me to prove that I can solve the problem that you did not solve, instead of simply making the unsubstantiated assertion that I could do so. I am not, after all, a liberal.

        Two masses M₁ and M₂ are initially at rest and separated by a distance, d. They are in vacuum and isolated from all forces except their mutual gravitation. How much time elapses between the instant at which the separation, r, is d/2 and the instant at which r=d/3?

        This is the famous “plunge orbit problem.” You begin with the conservation of energy, as expressed by the Vis Viva equation, solved for the speed in orbit:

        v = √[2GM(1/r−1/d)]

        Where d is the apoapsis distance and r is the current distance. Since all motion in a plunge orbit is radial, we can replace v by the derivative form.

        dr/dt = √[2GM(1/r−1/d)]

        We then set up the integration.

        ∫ dt = ∫ dr / √[2GM(1/r−1/d)]

        The two key substitutions to make in this instance are

        a² = −1/d
        x² = −1/r

        Notice that

        2x dx = dr/r²
        dr = (2/x³) dx

        Our integral becomes

        ∫dt = √[2/(GM)] ∫ dx / [x³√(a²−x²)]

        I recognize the form of the integral, and I know that the solution is

        ∫ dx / [x³√(a²−x²)] = −√(a²−x²)/(2a²x²) − [1/(2a³)] ln{[a + √(a²−x²)]/x}


        √(GM/2) ∫dt = −√(a²−x²)/(2a²x²) − [1/(2a³)] ln{[a + √(a²−x²)]/x}

        And I note that

        a²−x² = 1/r−1/d
        1/(a²x²) = rd
        x = i/√r
        a = i/√d
        1/a³ = i d√d

        Substitution and factorization gives

        ∫dt = √[d/(2GM)] { √(rd−r²) − id ln{[√(r/d) − i √(1−r/d)]} }

        Euler’s Theorem describes a complex relationship between the trigonometric functions and the natural logarithms. In particular,

        arctan{√[(1−x)/x]} = i ln[√x − i √(1−x)]

        Which means

        t−t₀ = t(r) = √[d/(2GM)] { √(rd−r²) + d arctan[√(d/r−1)] }

        Putting in the limits,

        t₁−t₀ = t(d/2) = (1/2 + π/4) √{d³/[2G(M+m)]}

        t₂−t₀ = t(d/3) = {√(2)/3 + arctan[√(2)]} √{d³/[2G(M+m)]}

        t₂−t₁ = (t₂−t₀)−(t₁−t₀) = {√(2)/3 + arctan[√(2)] − 1/2 − π/4} √{d³/[2G(M+m)]}

        t₂−t₁ ≈ 0.141322975518 √{d³/[2G(M+m)]}

      • David Sims says:

        Hey, Rachel. Let’s see how well you can reason mathematically. You are given two points and told to find the equation of the ellipse that passes through them both. You’re given the location of the focus of the ellipse. You’re told that one of the points, but not both of them, occur at an end of the ellipse’s major axis. How would you find the ellipse’s eccentricity?

  58. Tony Watson says:

    I’m in plant science and while it isn’t the same thing exactly, we are seeing a large shift toward correlation-intensive/big data analytics information. The basic thought is: if the correlation is strong, we can model it effectively and therefore causation takes a back seat to the predictive power of the model.

    • Laura says:

      commenting on a 2-month-old comment …

      This is very interesting because it explains something I see. You can predict X by looking at Y if Y causes X, yes, but also if Y is caused by the same thing X is caused by; in other words, X may be a proxy for whatever the causative factor is, which may not be known.

      I’ve seen articles that seemed to assume cause-and-effect between two things that correlate, and even swap them back and forth in the same article. I think sometimes the people who write the articles think only in terms of cause-and-effect, and not of correlations that don’t have that relationship at all.

  59. missy says:

    A good summary of real studies on the topic of sex differences in intelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence

    In some of them man preformed a little better, in others, women had some advantage. In many, many cases the male positive differences had to do with socio-economic status and not actually sex.

    There are only slight differences, at least in what male advantage is concerned. Also it tends to be more males both at the bottom and at the top in what concerns IQ scores.

  60. great article pure content good stuff in your site thanks..Softwareseo

  61. jimmyt says:

    would just like to note that IQ tests are constructed so there is no overall difference in intelligence by gender.

    PC has subverted science

  62. Delaney says:

    It makes you wonder if men who obtained a low quantitative SAT score have a lower percentage of attending college than females who scored similarly.

  63. Itsnobody says:

    Males have larger brains than females.

    This means that the smartest female will always be less intelligent than the smartest male just like how the physically strongest male will always be stronger than the physically strongest female.

    The bench press record for a male is 1,102 lbs.
    The bench press record for a female is 551 lbs.

    While it’s true that the strongest female maybe stronger than many males she’ll always be weaker than the strongest male, in the same way the smartest male will always be smarter than the smartest female.

    Those are just the biological facts.

    • alysdexia says:

      Neanderthal brains were greater than sapient brains. Brain is mostly filled with white matter that shortens connections rather than processes them; white matter is greater in sociopaths.


    • Rachel Cote says:

      When you cite brain size as a reason why men are smarter than women, when brain size doesn’t actually have anything to do with intelligence.

  64. Jack Tractor says:

    I was doing a web search to see what the median IQ of people who complete an Associates degree in Electronics is. That is a two year degree that gives you better earning power than many 4 year degrees.

  65. Well, your IQ rate might be useless if that certain students is not that serious when it comes to learning. Still, it’s nice that you put some ideas on how to rate a person’s capabilities for those specific subject basing from his IQ.

  66. Kennon Gilson says:

    OP: On Philosophy=blame the Libertarians. For years philosophy was combined in GRE’s with religion and scored low. But a few years ago after a Libertarian campaign they were separated. Result: Philosophy majors score at the top of GRE verbal and logic and with the engineers in math.
    In the USA the major itself is a little funny, as departments welcome people taking the major because of curiosity or self-enhancement so is pretty forgiving (like people taking art as a second major, called hobby majors), but serious philosophy majors basically know several languages, have an engineers understanding of math and science, and have a triple major or graduate with something like 170 credits. A good philosophy minor ups your game in anything: logic I and II, systems theory, applied ethics, analysis, rhetorical analysis presentation, plus encouragement to study martial arts (‘mens sana…’)…works for me.

    • asdfds says:

      Philosophy was never exported to the USA.

      But in my view it is no harm that they don’t know, not even suspect this fact.

  67. Stephanie says:

    SAT scores no longer correlate with IQ. Go look on the Mensa and Triple 9 society websites.

  68. Cheese says:

    Those “ETS curated” statistics appear to be bullshit. There is no proper source for them on that site. Of course that didn’t stop the infamous pedant Richard Lynn from using it as a source in an academic paper. So it goes with the study of IQ.

  69. Steve Cook says:

    I think the data results provide 2 bits of culturally important information.

    A) Men and women are notably equal as per IQ results.

    B) Women thus tend to take less “IQ” related career choices (I am curious if it is a shift from men as per a standard shift, or some other pattern arises).

    This indicates to me that culture is still significantly influencing career choices by gender. I am interested if this similar in other countries, or how countries stack up, as I believe it could show some measurement of cultural maturity.

    So the first argument is as a culture are we limiting ourselves by keeping half of our brightest away from the more quantitative careers. Assuming that this statement is true as the data suggests, is that limiting our technological and cultural growth?

    The second is questioning how we raise our children, are “tomboys” or other quantifiable distinction more likely to match men on the placements or other women? If so this may be a means to identify a basis to improve cultural maturity, (assuming balance is actually a reflection of maturity and beneficial to the culture)

    • CP says:

      From What I’ve heard, in less Gender equal countries, like in Delhi India, the top 10% of women are actually more likely to go into male dominated fields (i.e. physics, eng, comp sci, economics) than their counterparts (top 10%) in Oslo, Norway. When asked why, the Indian women cite ”because those jobs pay well”, whereas the Norwegian women will often cite ”because I really like ” as their main motivation.

      The difference, at least in post-hoc reasoning, seems to be due to limitations in income. If anything, women truly DO want to study in fields like psychology, sociology, etc. and their biggest constraint is funding/income.

      Youtube ”The Gender Equality Paradox”, it was a good documentary about stuff like this.

  70. Cheese says:

    I’ve gotta ask: why does anyone believe that those “statistics brain” iq scores are accurate? Where is the source? Certainly not on the page given.

  71. Mike678 says:

    “A naive reader may look at this graph and conclude that men are smarter than women, but it is vital to note that, on average, men and women have about the same IQ.”

    It’s not the average that is important–look at the distribution. Many studies show that women group closely around the mean, while men show more variability. 130-140 IQ males are more common than females, which is one reason men dominate hard-science fields. On the other hand, there are more men at the moron and imbecile range.

  72. FeorgeEliot says:

    I don’t know whether or not this has been mentioned already (ais a brief foray into the comments has convinced me of their general toxicity) but the IQ estimates seem to be lifted directly off of the IQ Comparison Site. Other possibilities are that the two sites were developed by the same individuals, or that the IQ Comparison Site actually lifted from StatisticBrain. The former site is more concerned with estimation, having tables upon tables of results, so I think it more likely that it’s creator originated the IQ estimates.

    How I determined the similarity of both sites’ estimates was by comparing their results for the first five or so entries down the major list here. StatisticBrain’s results just seemed to be rounded from those on the IQ Comparison Site’s GRE to IQ estimation.

    Link to the IQ Comparison Site (if anyone wants to evaluate my claims for themselves):

  73. Karl Grosvenor says:

    My score is 72 so what does that mean?

  74. Liam says:

    Hard question and interesting article. I had similar theme of essay at the university. But I asked help freshessays and pass it easily.

  75. The Contentious Otter says:

    I think what your study really points to is the deficiency of IQ as a measure of intelligence and the failings of the SAT as a test. As a librarian I deal with academics of all types, and strongly disagree with the notion that the math and science guys are categorically more intelligent than the humanities department.

  76. david says:

    I think before coming to conclusions, the data needs to be better controlled.
    There are 30% more female college students than male. Say IQ is evenly distributed. I’d suggest the first-order model that there is an IQ cutoff for men and women to attend college. You would then expect that the average male college student is smarter than the average female student, due to sampling bias.

    IF we had the average female college student IQ and the average male college student IQ, we could then easily correct this slope for the effect.

  77. Nick Erlan says:

    It doesn’t mean men smarter than women. It means just that the most of smartest people are men.

  78. Sabretruthtiger says:

    It’s common knowledge that the top minds are male, along with the least intelligent.
    Male mammalian populations have more diverse ability traits and intelligence to aid in natural selection, it’s not rocket science, it’s ‘Bateman’s Principle’. The broader and more even the spectrum, the better the top males selected will be and the more rapid and effective the species’ advancement all things being equal, which they’re not unfortunately as the ‘elite’ push cultural Marxist agendas to dumb down society and promote women while subjugating men, evidenced by the fact that the media proclaims loudly n concert whenever there’s a small flwed study claiming women are smarter while completely ignoring the wealth of scientific studies and empirical evidence showing the opposite is true.

  79. Seann says:

    The big yellow one is the sun

  80. Rachel Cote says:

    Majors historically dominated by men– due to the fact that they were seen as unfit for women up until fairly recently– are potentially intimidating to women, and STEM degrees are some of the more male-dominated majors available. I think that you might not be addressing some less scientific but in no way less valid points that a number of women have been making for a while now which can be summarized pretty easily:

    Joining a male dominated major is absolute bullshit.

    I personally lasted a semester in the major I chose, which was 80% men, because I felt cheated. I worked just as hard as any guy there, and yet I wasn’t treated as an equal; I was “quizzed” in conversation by classmates about my opinions and interests, as if that was either relevant to my skill-set or appropriate, men would lower their expectations on group projects when I was on their team and verbally express how we should change our plans to account for me as a team member (I was a Game Art and Animation major working with designers and programmers: “So I guess we’re doing something cartoony…”) and told that I only got into the major because of the initiative to accept more women in that specific major, when I have an IQ of 138 and have been awarded for my art.
    I can’t even imagine being a science major as a woman. I wouldn’t want to be. It sounds fucking awful.
    It’s not exactly pleasant when your major feels like more of a test of how long you can handle the task of proving that you know what you’re doing to people who are supposed to be your peers rather than an actual space in which you’re capable of improving your skills.

  81. Rachel Cote says:

    This comment section is a perfect representation on why women don’t want to be in the same major as you pseudo-intellectual fucks:

    • Rachel Cote says:

      And you wonder and conjour up ideas about why women aren’t in STEM. It’s pieces of shit like this. This is why women who are interested in STEM aren’t in STEM.

      Demand a source, I don’t really give a shit. As a woman, this is the reason I would never force myself back into a male-dominated major.

      • David Sims says:

        No, the reason is you couldn’t do the work required by those majors.

        In fact, the averages in IQ for men and women are about the same. The difference is in the spread, the standard deviation. As compared with women, men have fewer individuals in the central hump of the normal curve and more members in the low and high tails. There are more male morons than female morons. But there are also more male geniuses than there are female geniuses.

        And that’s an advantage for the males. The cutting edge of intellectual labor long ago advanced beyond what someone of only average intelligence can do. For some time, and probably forevermore, the mediocrities in IQ will matter no more than the retards do.

      • David Sims says:

        FYi, the fraction, f, of a group having a normal distribution in IQ, with an average IQ of x̄, and a standard deviation in IQ of σ, which is above the minimum IQ of μ.

        f(μ) = [σ√(2π)]⁻¹ ∫(μ,∞) exp{ −[(x−x̄)/σ]²/2 } ∂x

        Or, to make it more solvable:

        f(μ) = ½ − [σ√(2π)]⁻¹ ∫(x̄,μ) exp{ −[(x−x̄)/σ]²/2 } ∂x

        I’ll leave you to hunt down the data on the averages and standard deviations for men and for women. Bear in mind that the distribution varies by race even more than it does by gender.

  82. Shea says:

    Women outpace men in college attendance at every level of socioeconomic status, more women are then taking the SAT/ACT/GRE than their male counterparts so we see the women pulling scores more from the middle of their ability distribution than are men, this is then compounded by the fact that women are less likely to select into analytical majors. I think this explains at least part of what is going on here.

  83. Mars says:

    One could just look at actual SAT data to find out while there is a slight gender gap among topscorers on the SAT, it’s not near enough to explain this chart you know.


    Also the finding of higher Iq variance among males is not universal


    Though even if it did just exist in America it could explain this chart in part. Another thing to mention is that the SAT isn’t exactly the best measure of intelligence anyway. Mensa hasn’t accepted SAT scores for a long time now claiming it was a test of achievement rather than ability.

  84. Michael Price says:

    I’m no expert, but I felt the author’s statement: “A naive reader may look at this graph and conclude that men are smarter than women, but it is vital to note that, on average, men and women have about the same IQ…” is a bit, well, naïve? From what I understand of studies done on this subject, women, in the real world, on average, are smarter than men. What is completely glossed over (“glossed over” being the most generous thing I can call it) is that this is bc the iq scores of women, as a group, are very consistent. The large part of women are hovering around, if not above, the population’s aggregate iq scores. However, the other end of the story is that men are literally all over the iq map. They have way more very-dumbs, dumbs, smarts, intelligents, geniuses (I don’t know the terminology, if you couldn’t tell). My point is that this disparity of iq scores between the sexes fits perfectly with the study presented in this article: In the rarefied environment of a university, more women qualify to get in. However, the college iq environmental average is not the average of the outside world. You could have an iq of 120 and literally be the dumbest person in the room. Thus, because men tend to have more extreme intelligence scores, don’t be surprised when you show up to college to find that the smartest person in the room is sometimes a man (bc most of the “dumb” men didn’t get in and, hopefully, the exceptionally intelligent man had the opportunity to get in). Therefore, you’d expect to see this kind of divergence in the types of majors studied by the majority of men vs the majority of women who have been accepted into college.

  85. Marius Bakowski says:

    Was the goal to show that humanist are idiots or just to show that woman are idiots?

  86. Mo says:

    I am an example of an exception to the rule. I was homeschooled until college, however I’ve taken 3 IQ tests in my life and on all of them I scored over 135 the last one was after I finished grad school and was 140. However my GRE score was absolutely horrible, while my GPA in undergrad was just below 4.0 due to a bad grade in college Algebra. I find standardized tests to be annoying and completely inaccurate for people like myself, yet we must take them to get into top tier programs. Those of us who are considered “intelligent” or “smart” yet are just plain horrible at taking tests, are looked over completely based solely on our test scores. I think that’s ridiculous and a shame considering the GRE for us does not measure anything except our inability to take standardized tests. I had no problem with taking tests in college, but they were not standardized tests. I also graduated at the top of my class in grad school, at Dartmouth by the way. Now that I want to continue my education into a PhD program I have to take the damn GRE subject test after being out of school for 5 years and almost a decade since I took the GRE general. Do you think I’m going to do well? Of course not, and I will likely not get accepted into any program worth anything as a result of this stupid test. While this test may indeed be reliable for others it is simply not reliable for those of us with unconventional education backgrounds.

  87. John Smith says:

    That was almost brave of you Randal. Men have higher IQs period. Not just at the extremities of the bell curve but in the mean as well. Men score consistently higher than women on average of 6 to 9 points. Look at Stanford-Binet, WAIS IV, etc. your data on college majors jives with that. No need to hurriedly offer qualifiers or explanations

  88. Kufir says:

    The data isn’t lying: Fudging definitions and willfully misinterpreting the data is lying and you are doing it here. In graph of gender ratio vs. SAT verbal, the female dominant (ratio of course participants) side indicates a trend of lower ability. The male side of the plot shows a wider more homogeneous spread of ability. the gender ratio vs. SAT quantitative plot suggests that overall males are more analytical and better at it. Your conclusion that “Not all majors require a high analytical aptitude” suggests that not all majors require the same intellectual rigor. perhaps you should have followed your instincts and stayed away from this political minefield until your impartiality was restored and ready to weather the next emotional tirade from feminists and the like, who did not study analytically intense subjects. However, what do i know? I only got a degree in physics and maths, not gender studies and childcare.

  89. Efe Ren says:

    “A naive reader may look at this graph and conclude that men are smarter than women, but it is vital to note that, on average, men and women have about the same IQ.”

    It’s important to not let your PC tendencies cloud your judgement too much :).

    “…males typically outnumber females substantially among high-scoring individuals.”

    The people with IQs of 120 and up are mostly male which explains these results pretty well.

  90. democrat CockRoach says:

    People who gravitate to the democrat party are fairly stupid. Just FACE it and stop trying to cover it up. Look at their DEMOGRAPHICS that says it all.

    All they do is recruit illiterate illegals and HATE groups.

7 Pings/Trackbacks for "Average IQ of students by college major and gender ratio"
  1. […] Average IQ of students by college major and gender ratio […]

  2. […] informe de Randy Olson en el que, con datos de EEUU para hombres y mujeres, vemos las diferentes preferencias de estudios […]

  3. […] Average IQ of students by college major and gender ratio and pretty charts […]