Info FOIDS ARE LESS INTELLIGENT

[nwostalgia]

you my good sir have won the internet for today

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

yea male and female differences are mainly in the reproductive system the rest is the same basically

 

[Deleted Member 46433]

@Starlet @moonlight1 @Garce @rickydickydoodahgrimes @huntergirl @Spuffy @yasyduck @2based @hazyfuture any thoughts ?

honestly any woman or man who cares about this is not smart. its not like hes saying hes smarter than anybody due to his biology, which would be a whole other thing.

i dont see why i should care about a small adult male mean iq advantage based on g tests. like really???? on certain test batteries and modeling choices, men score slightly higher on a derived factor?????

so in conclusion, he is not wrong, but that doesnt mean women should feel inferior to men in terms of intelligence. the term "superior" that hes using is a large, large stretch

oh, and i would say its known that lynn + irwing are not the best studies to source here, so he shouldve either left them out, or chose other sources. if he had the knowledge to source them, he might already know why theyre highly criticized without explanation

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

honestly any woman or man who cares about this is not smart. its not like hes saying hes smarter than anybody due to his biology, which would be a whole other thing.

how

i dont see why i should care about a small adult male mean iq advantage based on g tests. like really???? on certain test batteries and modeling choices, men score slightly higher on a derived factor?????

its objectively the best evidence there

so in conclusion, he is not wrong, but that doesnt mean women should feel inferior to men in terms of intelligence. the term "superior" that hes using is a large, large stretch

not a large stretch when 80 percent or genuises are men
and 66 percent of actual smart ppl are men

oh, and i would say its known that lynn + irwing are not the best studies to source here, so he shouldve either left them out, or chose other sources. if he had the knowledge to source them, he might already know why theyre highly criticized without explanation

lynn and irwing is objectively the best
they used ravens progressive matrices in samples
best for truly unpolluted iq measurement
no learning or cultural or educational bias

they are arbitrarily highly criticised except for the race study which was genuinely bad

 

[TonyDr]

u agree with that?

Nobody on that forum is ready for my opinion that women are far more intelligent than men since birth, but it's not based by science just my unc experience

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

Nobody on that forum is ready for my opinion that women are far more intelligent than men since birth, but it's not based by science just my unc experience

so tales
nobody would agree with ur random tales?

 

[TonyDr]

nobody would agree with ur random tales?

Not you for sure

 

[tonisworld]

Nobody on that forum is ready for my opinion that women are far more intelligent than men since birth, but it's not based by science just my unc experience

How old are you

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

Not you for sure

i take epistemics a tiny bit serious and am not mentally retarded and am not a cathedralite
so obviously i would not arbitrarily believe in ur baseless claims

 

[tonisworld]

This guy needs a basis as to why r**e is bad. I have to argue my case why r**e is bad. Just ignore the subhuman guys

 

[tonisworld]

i take epistemics a tiny bit serious and am not mentally retarded and am not a cathedralite
so obviously i would not arbitrarily believe in ur baseless claims

U got ur epistemology from the back of ur naan bread ya poofta

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

This guy needs a basis as to why r**e is bad. I have to argue my case why r**e is bad. Just ignore the subhuman guys

no
all moral claims need an objective basis
if you dont understand this
its a you problem

 

[TonyDr]

How old are you

Too old for this shit, 27

so obviously i would not arbitrarily believe in ur baseless claims

That's why i said "based on my experience" king

 

[tonisworld]

no
all moral claims need an objective basis
if you dont understand this
its a you problem

No they dont. Even tho I can give you plenty like causing suffering is wrong you would fine a way to justify it like the subhuman you are. You dirty little f****t who hates women.

 

[apatheia]

---

~—• @RAJ GHRANDHICK •—~​

---

i take epistemics a tiny bit serious and am not mentally retarded and am not a cathedralite
so obviously i would not arbitrarily believe in ur baseless claims

Too old for this shit, 27


That's why i said "based on my experience" king

We are all low iq for being on .com these studies don't apply to us, so DNR your studies.

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

No they dont. Even tho I can give you plenty like causing suffering is wrong you would fine a way to justify it like the subhuman you are. You dirty little f****t who hates women.

n***a
then u r saying suffering is bad
someone else could just as arbitrarily claim suffering is good and boom
nothing is established
so fuck off with ur turbo brainlet bullshit
dumbfucking subhuman

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

---

~—• @RAJ GHRANDHICK •—~​

---

We are all low iq for being on .com these studies don't apply to us, so DNR your studies.

not at all

 

[apatheia]

---

~—• @RAJ GHRANDHICK •—~​

---

not at all

Bruh.
It was a joke.

 

[tonisworld]

Too old for this shit, 27


That's why i said "based on my experience" king

Im unc too bro 33.

n***a
then u r saying suffering is bad
someone else could just as arbitrarily claim suffering is good and boom
nothing is established
so fuck off with ur turbo brainlet bullshit
dumbfucking subhuman

Well, we have collectively agreed as species that suffering is painful, physical suffering etc. Hence punishments such as jail, beatings stonings. Its common sense. There is no argument why you should cause pain for your pleasure tk another person. You are not as smart as you think with ur 3rd world education. I dont even mean to be racist but ur not beating the allegations. Some of my best homies are sri lankan. So again this is a predominantly you thing. Ur parents failed you.

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

---

~—• @RAJ GHRANDHICK •—~​

---

Bruh.
It was a joke.

ok then
some ppl are genuinely stupid ,i thought u were one of them

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

Im unc too bro 33.

damn

Well, we have collectively agreed as species that suffering is painful, physical suffering etc. Hence punishments such as jail, beatings stonings. Its common sense. There is no argument why you should cause pain for your pleasure tk another person. You are not as smart as you think with ur 3rd world education. I dont even mean to be racist but ur not beating the allegations. Some of my best homies are sri lankan. So again this is a predominantly you thing. Ur parents failed you.

idc about what u collectively agree
if everyone just collectively agree to make u a sex slave
itll be morally good?
also education doesn't make anyone smart
so with ur first world education u r still dumb
yes u liking ur sri lankan homies prove my point
and no its not a me problem
its a low intelligence problem that u r creating

 

[tonisworld]

damn

idc about what u collectively agree
if everyone just collectively agree to make u a sex slave
itll be morally good?
also education doesn't make anyone smart
so with ur first world education u r still dumb
yes u liking ur sri lankan homies prove my point
and no its not a me problem
its a low intelligence problem that u r creating

There are far more intelligent people, you can go listen to who speak on epistemology and argument for God and why suffering is inherently wrong. You can go listen to them. One of my favorites is sam Harris. Free youtube if you have that on ur Nokia 64. Im done here. Idk what you do for work but whatever it is ur license should be revoked.

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

There are far more intelligent people, you can go listen to who speak on epistemology and argument for God and why suffering is inherently wrong. You can go listen to them. One of my favorites is sam Harris. Free youtube if you have that on ur Nokia 64. Im done here. Idk what you do for work but whatever it is ur license should be revoked.

give ur argument here or ur claim was arbitrary
also idc bout ur definition of god
and what if i dont agree suffering is inherently bad

 

[Deleted Member 46433]

how

well i would say youre simply laying this information out which is better than if you were to make a thread saying how you were smarter than all women because of these studies. a lot of people assume that when people make these posts, but its not the case. you specifically arent claiming superiority, just males in general. it was smart to do that because otherwise there would be a greater influx of people insulting your intelligence which im sure you wouldnt like. im saying that its a good thing you didnt claim such a thing because that would be way more false

its objectively the best evidence there

i never said it was bad evidence, but rather obsolete. in my opinion if it were objectively the best, it would be reflected in a consensus type aspect, but its not. so when you say "objective," its not really a scientific statement but rather a rhetorical one

not a large stretch when 80 percent or genuises are men
and 66 percent of actual smart ppl are men

i agreed with your iq stuff but now determining intelligence based off "genuis" is generally wrong. if you were aware of the definition of "genius," then its clear that it has very little to do with iq (but obviously youre still right that geniuses in general are very very smart). when people use this term, its important to ask think about certain things. which dataset are you using when you say that? which time period? and which educational barriers were present? so my qualm with that term is that its more of a public recognition thing rather than a label for solid mental capacity. i think we need to separate the term from iq personally

lynn and irwing is objectively the best
they used ravens progressive matrices in samples
best for truly unpolluted iq measurement
no learning or cultural or educational bias

actually you are right that ravens progressive matrices is a great measure to use


anyways, my main point despite all of this is while this is true, this doesnt give males a categorial dominance over intelligence. with ~5 point iq difference, there is a MASSIVE overlap (like ~85-95% overlap between genders), which is just math. it still means that millions of women outperform the average man (and vice versa of course). THAT is why i think the term superior is just wrong to use: because of the huge overlap

all i was saying before was that while the thread is true, its so obsolete that it doesnt really matter if its true. sex is just a terrible predictor of intelligence for all of these reasons and more (at an individual level).
i was tagged, so i just thought id share my own ideas and criticism. im checking out now so have a good day bud

 

[</3]

fallacy after fallacy

not at all
egalitarian cathedralite view thats incoherent and simply proven untrue upon simple rational analysis

we do

its a super shit way
u just don't understand intelligence at all
iq is the best way

its litteraly not in the same level
different in all ways
i have epistemical validity
those ppl arbitrarily assert bs
false equivalency

fallacies mentioned in an attempt to sound smart, dnr 🫩

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

well i would say youre simply laying this information out which is better than if you were to make a thread saying how you were smarter than all women because of these studies. a lot of people assume that when people make these posts, but its not the case. you specifically arent claiming superiority, just males in general. it was smart to do that because otherwise there would be a greater influx of people insulting your intelligence which im sure you wouldnt like. im saying that its a good thing you didnt claim such a thing because that would be way more false

i never said it was bad evidence, but rather obsolete. in my opinion if it were objectively the best, it would be reflected in a consensus type aspect, but its not. so when you say "objective," its not really a scientific statement but rather a rhetorical one

no its objectively best scientifically consensus doesn't matter
it has never mattered

i agreed with your iq stuff but now determining intelligence based off "genuis" is generally wrong. if you were aware of the definition of "genius," then its clear that it has very little to do with iq (but obviously youre still right that geniuses in general are very very smart). when people use this term, its important to ask think about certain things. which dataset are you using when you say that? which time period? and which educational barriers were present? so my qualm with that term is that its more of a public recognition thing rather than a label for solid mental capacity. i think we need to separate the term from iq personally

genius = 145 iq
simple

actually you are right that ravens progressive matrices is a great measure to use


anyways, my main point despite all of this is while this is true, this doesnt give males a categorial dominance over intelligence. with ~5 point iq difference, there is a MASSIVE overlap (like ~85-95% overlap between genders), which is just math. it still means that millions of women outperform the average man (and vice versa of course). THAT is why i think the term superior is just wrong to use: because of the huge overlap

huge overlap is a thing
but it doesn't matter
plus 5 is always plus 5
u cant just ignore that cuz of overlap
u cant ignore that black ppl are better at basketball even tho there is overlap

all i was saying before was that while the thread is true, its so obsolete that it doesnt really matter if its true. sex is just a terrible predictor of intelligence for all of these reasons and more (at an individual level).
i was tagged, so i just thought id share my own ideas and criticism. im checking out now so have a good day bud

well here i kind of agree
but my point still stands
women are less intelligent
theres a deep misunderstanding that men are only physically better
i had to correct that
we are better in many ways

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

fallacies mentioned in an attempt to sound smart, dnr 🫩

n***a fallacies have meanings
i didn't arbitrarily mention them
u r just close minded
she committed so many fallacies and her reasoning was not good

 

[</3]

n***a fallacies have meanings
i didn't arbitrarily mention them
u r just close minded
she committed so many fallacies and her reasoning was not good

um um straw man uhhh ad populum

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

um um straw man uhhh ad populum

bro
are u against rational thoughts

 

[</3]

bro
are u against rational thoughts

yes i try to abstain from such things

 

[arzzey]

yes i try to abstain from such things

username checks out

 

[Harold O'Brien]

but what about the women who are smarter than you?

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

but what about the women who are smarter than you?

they exist ofc and they mog

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

yes i try to abstain from such things

holy r****d

 

[tonisworld]

bro
are u against rational thoughts

Pov r**e rational thought to thia guy

 

[</3]

holy r****d

i’m starting to doubt ur faux intellect

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

i’m starting to doubt ur faux intellect

is it a rational thought or an irrational fallacious one

 

[</3]

is it a rational thought or an irrational fallacious one

you’re in control of what you want your reality to be raj, i am nothing but a low iq foid compressed into a couple pixels

 

[johnarcabob]

l

G-BASED GENDER IQ FINDINGS (SOLID, RELEVANT LITERATURE ONLY)

1) OVERALL PATTERN
• Boys and girls score essentially the same on g throughout childhood.
• After puberty, adult men show a small positive shift in mean g.
• The observed shift is consistently reported at ~+4 to ~+6 IQ points, depending on test battery.
• Variance is comparable between sexes; the claim that men have systematically larger deviation is not supported by the data.

2) KEY RESEARCH

Jensen & Reynolds (1983) — WISC-R (children)
• No meaningful gender gap prior to adolescence.
• No evidence of a sex difference in variance in childhood samples.

Lynn & Irwing (2004) — Meta-analysis (~57 samples; Raven’s, etc.)
• Adult male mean advantage on g ≈ +5 IQ points.
• No consistent evidence for greater male variance; variance differences are small, inconsistent, or absent across samples.
• Difference emerges post-adolescence.

Hyde (2005)
• Small male advantage in spatial and reasoning components.
• Negligible difference in verbal ability.
• No reliable evidence for a general male-variance effect on g.

Colom et al. (2003)
• Male advantage in variable reduction and spatial reasoning.
• Findings do not rely on, nor require, a greater-male-variance hypothesis.

3) DISTRIBUTION CONSEQUENCES
(Mean difference ≈ 5 IQ points; SD ≈ 15)

• IQ >130 → ~2 men per 1 woman
• IQ >145 → ~3–4 men per 1 woman
• IQ <70 → 2 women per 1 man

These ratios follow directly from normal-distribution mathematics given the stated parameters, without invoking greater male variance.

4) BASIS
• Replicated across decades.
• Replicated with different instruments.
• Observed across cultures.
• Consistent with developmental neurobiology.

most ppl think men are just physically superior
no we are superior in all ways except like nurturing babies,in that field they mog us brutally

less funny too

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

you’re in control of what you want your reality to be raj, i am nothing but a low iq foid compressed into a couple pixels

wrong
reality is objective

 

[tonisworld]

wrong
reality is objective

Urs ain't. Bro conversation with cockroaches in his hut as we speak

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

Urs ain't. Bro conversation with cockroaches in his hut as we speak

there isnt mine or your reality
reality is reality

 

[Inanimate Pragmatist]

G-BASED GENDER IQ FINDINGS (SOLID, RELEVANT LITERATURE ONLY)

1) OVERALL PATTERN
• Boys and girls score essentially the same on g throughout childhood.
• After puberty, adult men show a small positive shift in mean g.
• The observed shift is consistently reported at ~+4 to ~+6 IQ points, depending on test battery.
• Variance is comparable between sexes; the claim that men have systematically larger deviation is not supported by the data.

2) KEY RESEARCH

Jensen & Reynolds (1983) — WISC-R (children)
• No meaningful gender gap prior to adolescence.
• No evidence of a sex difference in variance in childhood samples.

Lynn & Irwing (2004) — Meta-analysis (~57 samples; Raven’s, etc.)
• Adult male mean advantage on g ≈ +5 IQ points.
• No consistent evidence for greater male variance; variance differences are small, inconsistent, or absent across samples.
• Difference emerges post-adolescence.

Hyde (2005)
• Small male advantage in spatial and reasoning components.
• Negligible difference in verbal ability.
• No reliable evidence for a general male-variance effect on g.

Colom et al. (2003)
• Male advantage in variable reduction and spatial reasoning.
• Findings do not rely on, nor require, a greater-male-variance hypothesis.

3) DISTRIBUTION CONSEQUENCES
(Mean difference ≈ 5 IQ points; SD ≈ 15)

• IQ >130 → ~2 men per 1 woman
• IQ >145 → ~3–4 men per 1 woman
• IQ <70 → 2 women per 1 man

These ratios follow directly from normal-distribution mathematics given the stated parameters, without invoking greater male variance.

4) BASIS
• Replicated across decades.
• Replicated with different instruments.
• Observed across cultures.
• Consistent with developmental neurobiology.

most ppl think men are just physically superior
no we are superior in all ways except like nurturing babies,in that field they mog us brutally

Which AI did your homework and writing?

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

Which AI did your homework and writing?

why does it matter

 

[Inanimate Pragmatist]

why does it matter

Plenty. It is one thing asking an AI to check if your sources are out of date or to find conflicting views but when it writes everything for you, then it is nothing but a sign of cognitive rot. I agree with the AI and your prompt but it is rather ironic you mock another's intelligence whilst not being able to prove yours via writing.

 

[Anna]

honestly any woman or man who cares about this is not smart. its not like hes saying hes smarter than anybody due to his biology, which would be a whole other thing.

i dont see why i should care about a small adult male mean iq advantage based on g tests. like really???? on certain test batteries and modeling choices, men score slightly higher on a derived factor?????

so in conclusion, he is not wrong, but that doesnt mean women should feel inferior to men in terms of intelligence. the term "superior" that hes using is a large, large stretch

oh, and i would say its known that lynn + irwing are not the best studies to source here, so he shouldve either left them out, or chose other sources. if he had the knowledge to source them, he might already know why theyre highly criticized without explanation

we are pretty much equal, also dont women do better in class assessments than men anyway?!

iq doesnt matter anyway JFL its always midwits who make a big deal out of who has the "higher iq" with stuff

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

Plenty. It is one thing asking an AI to check if your sources are out of date or to find conflicting views but when it writes everything for you, then it is nothing but a sign of cognitive rot. I agree with the AI and your prompt but it is rather ironic you mock another's intelligence whilst not being able to prove yours via writing.

intelligence=writing now
man stfu u dont understand anything here
using a tool is now a sign of low iq

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

we are pretty much equal, also dont women do better in class assessments than men anyway?!

iq doesnt matter anyway JFL its always midwits who make a big deal out of who has the "higher iq" with stuff

and so the real midwit spoke

 

[Anna]

and so the real midwit spoke

WE are both midwits if we are being honest

most people are

 

[RAJ GHRANDHICK]

WE are both midwits if we are being honest

most people are

most ppl are≠i am
u definitely are tho