>>16906714
Cute bait. Most of /sci/ can't read a chart any better, though. Must be the estrogen mimickers.

File: 1736364818879720.png (230.7 KB)

230.7 KB PNG

>>16906717
>Cute bait
except it isn't. show that chart to any woman and tell her that the average woman is smarter than the average man and observe her reaction

Both curves are centralized on abou the same score (horizontal line), about 100
this means the average is the same
the difference between the curves is that there are more average women than average men (% of population, vertical line) and less gifted women than gifted men, and less cognitively impaired women than men.

>>16906714
>social media screenshot threat
deserves an automatic ban

another thread to hide from the catalog with shift + left click

>>16906714
Women might need a higher IQ more than ever now to catch up from those awfully repressed Middle Ages.
The funny thing is if I did something quantum that advanced the male side, then I would get female presents to equalize it. You can't get too far ahead of yourselves.

>>16906714
I genuinely don't know if this bitch is being serious or just ragebaiting

>>16906714
Heh, the probability distribution function of male IQ doesn't even empirically follow a Gaussian distribution.

The first moment is clearly not fixed at 100. It should have lower variance and negative skewness compared to the female distribution.

This is pure feminist propaganda with nothing to do with science.

Just a fake statistic, that's all.

>>16906714
>"Average chick is smarter"
>Curve shows they are the same, except most midwits are female
Case in point.

>>16906762
fewer

File: women in STEM inequality.png (186.4 KB)

186.4 KB PNG

>>16906714
Women contribute to science more under patriarchy

It's the psychopathy and the lack of accountability in a woke world. Easier to manipulate as well.
Next caller

>>16906714
Lol

Women are more consistently intelligent than men Men are more variable. There are pros and cons to each side of this. Women will generally just be better multi-taskers. I'd generally trust a woman behind a desk or computer.

>>16906714
actual proof that intelligence is literally autism

>>16906762
Which makes sense because there must be a biological lower limit of IQ where the woman cannot take care of her children any more and their survival is in danger.

>>16906762
>Both curves are centralized on abou the same score (horizontal line), about 100
Except those aren't even accurate curves. The average for women is a few points lower, which translates to a huge difference in proportions towards the tails and boils down to women being roughly as likely to be imbeciles but highly unlikely to be geniuses.

>>16913330
>Which makes sense
No, it doesn't.

>there must be a biological lower limit of IQ where the woman cannot take care of her children any more and their survival is in danger.
That limit is lower than the one where a man cannot take care of his woman, especially in an actual human society where taking care of children is a communal effort. Midwit normies should never be exposed to any terminology or themes related to evolution. It causes you to hallucinate like biological chatbots.

>>16913366
A male fox will never mate with another female fox if his dies. A female fox will mate with another male fox if hers dies.

>>16913429
You can make up retarded stories all you want but the bottom line is that your head canon makes no sense and is also empirically false because OP's chart is fake and women have a lower average IQ.

>>16913366
>That limit is lower than the one where a man cannot take care of his woman, especially in an actual human society where taking care of children is a communal effort. Midwit normies should never be exposed to any terminology or themes related to evolution. It causes you to hallucinate like biological chatbots.
You realise that all our DNA is from millions of years of evolution, the last couple thousand years haven’t made a dent.

>>16913491
See >>16913366
>Midwit normies should never be exposed to any terminology or themes related to evolution. It causes you to hallucinate like biological chatbots.
Except I amend the "midwit" remark. You're an absolute nigger-grade fuckwit.

>>16907167
DAMN

>>16906714
>another iq thread

>>16906714
women are more conscientious thats why lmao but theyre dumb as fuck so no problem solving ability in terms of innate ability

>>16906714
Men are more unstable than women. As ironic as it sounds.

It's a good thing that women are working more and taking careers seriously, it stops the rise of image obsession and doom scrolling social media. And getting them to manage and spend their own money rather than relying on men to be their surrogate fathers eases some of the tension between men and women. The fact they are stopping having children is the issue, and they are spreading the idea. The younger women fighting for promotions can be dick heads though. Men will just argue, women get jealous, competitive and start character assassination campaigns. I actually find the older women who have been my managers to be pretty good desu.

File: heheboy.jpg (26.5 KB)

26.5 KB JPG

>>16906714
>bell curve has the same centroid meaning both curve has same mean value
This graph not only shows shes wrong but also women are the midwit gender by distribution desu.

>>16913366
''biological chatbots'' LMFAO

>>16906714
>says average chick is smarter than average dude
>shows two distributions which have the same average
It seems Aly Drummond is somewhere in the left tail

>>16906851
>IQ doesn't even empirically follow a Gaussian distribution
Since the Gaussian distribution ranges from negative infinity to positive infinity, it obviously cannot. The only question is if the Gaussian distribution is a good approximation or not.

>The first moment is clearly not fixed at 100.
The "first moment" is just the average. Whether it is at 100 or not we cannot tell because the x-axis doesn't have any units.

>It should have lower variance [...] compared to the female distribution.
Why? The point being claimed is that men have *higher* variance.

>negative skewness compared to the female distribution
How so? Negative skewness would mean the long tail is to the left

>>16906714
Yes but science has become one big giant pussy so now male genius is tanking

>>16915369
Woah why are you talking like me? Lmao

>>16922355
Kys

File: 1764098311224843.jpg (279.2 KB)

279.2 KB JPG

>>16906714
No, DEI initiatives are.