Form: Reply

Hmm (Try to remember I’m a fan, kate.) …
It’s true at the margin, yes, but that’s just because IQ differences are more widely distributed among men and more narrowly distributed among women. So while men have a small advantage in the three to five iq point difference on average it’s simply an artifact of larger bodies so larger brains. Same issue as height.
There are quite literally no women at all at the critical margin. Even one of my heroes Elenor Ostrom was an empiricist not a theorist. And despite trying since the sixties we can’t find a SINGLE woman capable of it.
I mean, I know men who have greater capacity than I do, and I can even explain the difference – usually working memory. Some are extreme like Chomsky in speech and Witten in mathematics. I’ve never heard of or met a woman that I felt was anything close to an equal. (A similar statement which is what got Summers fired from his post as head of Harvard – despite he was right and it was obvious. I fact, there would be no female academics a the top schools if meritocracy rather than sexual redistribution prevailed.)
When men argue about women’s intelligence it’s almost always the feminine incapacity to scale (systematize) thought and the use of naxalt/axalt, special pleading, confusing approval/disapproval with truth/falsehood or other cognitive biases that are very difficult for women to overcome (ever).
I mean, I’ve documented sex differences in cognition and explained them at depth, certainly more so than anyone else in history, and the sex differences like the race differences are meaningful and substantive. But only at the margins.
It only matters at the margins. And when not at the margins it only matters in context of scale. Men don’t scale down thought well and women don’t scale up thought well – again for reasons I’ve explained.

Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice