|
|
| IQ and Sex (764493) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (764493) | |
IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 12:26:28 2011 Not the sexes, there the jimmy is just that men have a 5 point IQ advantage and higher standard deviation; Larry Summers gets the last laugh! But here I'm talking about sex.So what's up? If you're really bright, probably not friend down below. It turns out that (past an IQ of ~90) there is a strong negative correlation between IQ and sex drive. In fact, it's so pronounced, that whereas in the general population, 95% of men and 70% of women say they masturbate, only 68% of men and 20% of women at MIT say they do! Gene Expression: Intercourse and Intelligence Note that this totally does NOT describe me however, and I suspect that it doesn't describe several of you guys as well. It's established that men have higher sex drives than women, on average. But even still, higher IQ males do still have lower sex drives than their lower IQ counterparts, on average. Yet, this still leaves a lot of smart men looking for sex, and as it seems, men with a higher IQ's seem to have a harder time finding willing females, because men with IQ's ≥120 are more likely to solicit prostitutes. There is a negative correlation between IQ and (jock) masculinity, and as Peter Rosa will tell us, less masculine males are less attractive to women. Although these data are not broken down by race here, I would suspect that, even when matched for IQ, sex drive goes down as you go black -> brown -> white -> E. Asian. As we discussed the current dysgenic trend in the population, that successful (and higher IQ) individuals reproduce less, particularly among whites and East Asians, this is in large part why. Successful people (who have much higher IQ's than the general population) breed less in good part because they are as a whole genuinely less interested in sex. I would posit that excessive interest in sex interferes with getting ahead in today's world, as it leaves less time to devote to studies and the demands of career—not to mention actually having children. How did this evolve? For one, increased IQ seems to be associated with decreased sensitivity to testosterone. Further, consistent with J. Philippe Rushton's r/K selection theory, higher intelligence greatly increased survivability of offspring, and hence favored the need to have fewer of them (to increase investment in each one)—a problem that was especially acute in a world without birth control. As well, lower sex drive probably favors couple stability, as there is less desire to stray. Economist Bryan Caplan wrote two articles in the Wall Street Journal, the lastest talking about his newly released book based on Judith Rich Harris's revelation that parenting does not affect children's development, with the goal of encouraging people (presumably, as readers of the WSJ, smarter people) to have more children by freeing them of the burden of worrying about how their treatment of their children will affect how their children turn out (you'll see my take on the matter under "JYH" in the comments to his recent article). It is indeed true that smarter people, particularly whites and E. Asians, are more likely to see their children as investments—as K-selection theory would predict—and hence be more obsessed about how they are rearing them, so getting them to disassociate child-rearing practices from having children might encourage successful people to have more of them, as perhaps raising smart successful children won't seem as much of a chore. However, the general lower sex drive of high-IQ individuals presents a permanent road block to any hope of encouraging smarter people to breed more. The desire is just not there. Oddly, even if incentives were provided to encourage smart people to have more children, the ones that would likely bite first would be the ones with higher sex drives, and I predict this would lead to both the average intelligence and sex drive of the population going up, particular of the upper IQ end (who badly need it, it seems). |
|
|
| (764496) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 13 12:38:42 2011, in response to IQ and Sex, posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 12:26:28 2011. Why are MIT students used as a barometer of intelligence? |
|
|
| (764497) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 12:45:24 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 13 12:38:42 2011. Not the sexes, there the jimmy is just that men have a 5 point IQ advantage and higher standard deviationIt's my understanding that the mean I.Q. score of males and females is the same, with men having a slightly larger standard deviation. It should be noted that the higher standard deviation is not necessarily a good thing for men. Yes, males are over-represented among people at the highest I.Q. echelons, for example among top scientists, but they're also over-represented among the mentally retarded. Come to think of it, the preponderance of males among the most intelligent isn't always a good thing either, on account of the "nerd cliff" phenomenon. My blog |
|
|
| (764501) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 12:56:40 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 12:45:24 2011. Actually no, recent evidence based on adult IQ scores have found that men do have a 4.6 point higher mean IQ than women (page 25)(previous research was based on adolescents, and the male advantage appears late because males mature slower). Yes, the higher standard deviation for men is also higher, leading to more male geniuses and dumbasses. |
|
|
| (764502) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 13 12:57:31 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 13 12:38:42 2011. Because no one knows how to measure intelligence.What people do know how to measure is how well you do on standardized tests, so they call good performance on those tests "intelligence" even though it isn't. And MIT students certainly do very well on those tests. |
|
|
| (764503) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 12:58:24 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 13 12:38:42 2011. You need to have a high IQ to be admitted (or maybe some good connections). |
|
|
| (764508) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Apr 13 13:05:55 2011, in response to IQ and Sex, posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 12:26:28 2011. Oh, I thought this was gonna be about how smarter people are better in bed. Because they are. Awesomely so.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (764509) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 13:07:40 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 12:58:24 2011. You need to have a high IQ to be admitted [to MIT] (or maybe some good connections).Rumor has it that for a donation of $10 million - the "Harvard number" - you can get you kid admitted to Harvard no matter how mediocre his or her academic qualifications may be. Dunno if there's an "MIT number." My blog |
|
|
| (764510) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Apr 13 13:09:50 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 13:07:40 2011. Well we know there's a "Yale number".your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (764512) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 13:13:23 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Fred G on Wed Apr 13 13:05:55 2011. To pass time on a long airplane flight this man starts talking with a beautiful woman in the next seat. He asks her whether she's traveling for pleasure or business."Business," the woman replies. "I'm a psychologist, specializing in the study of human sexuality. I'm going to a conference where I'll be delivering a speech about my recent research into ethnic groups and sexuality. One thing I've learned is that Native American men are the biggest in a sexual sense, Jewish men are the most skillful at pleasing women in bed, and men from the South have the greatest endurance. I'm sorry, I should have introduced myself, my name is Mary Jones, what's yours?" "Running Bear Goldberg, but my friends call me Bubba." My blog |
|
|
| (764515) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 13:17:47 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 13 12:57:31 2011. Do we need to go over the validation of IQ, especially g, as a measure of general intelligence again? |
|
|
| (764516) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Nova LFSA 1289 on Wed Apr 13 13:17:55 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 13 12:38:42 2011. Which group would you rather see used as the barometer of intelligence? |
|
|
| (764517) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 13:18:59 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 13:13:23 2011. LOL! Love it! |
|
|
| (764523) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Apr 13 13:30:29 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 13:13:23 2011. Rim shot!your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (764526) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Apr 13 13:33:09 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Nova LFSA 1289 on Wed Apr 13 13:17:55 2011. LOL Islander Fans.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (764533) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 13 13:40:22 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 13:07:40 2011. It's more complicated than that.Money will get your kid higher on the list. More money will get you still higher. But nothing will get your kid into Harvard if they feel he'll flunk out right away. It's very embarassing to Harvard if the kid of a known rich person is admitted and then is an bvious moron who can't even handle the easiest courses. |
|
|
| (764535) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Nova LFSA 1289 on Wed Apr 13 13:44:10 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Fred G on Wed Apr 13 13:33:09 2011. LMAO. I see no good coming from that kind of study. |
|
|
| (764536) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Apr 13 13:45:54 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 13:13:23 2011. Didn't get your joke until I thought of Bubba from Forrest Gump. |
|
|
| (764538) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Apr 13 13:47:37 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 13 12:38:42 2011. conservative antiïntellectualism strikes again. |
|
|
| (764544) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 14:00:43 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Apr 13 13:47:37 2011. Well, Liberals ARE smarter than conservatives (as a whole of course).And, in fact, because IQ is positively correlated with liberalism, and negatively correlated with masculinity, it means that Democrats really ARE pussies, as a whole. See how this IQ thing is useful? |
|
|
| (764553) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Apr 13 14:11:57 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 14:00:43 2011. LOL, great post! |
|
|
| (764561) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 14:19:44 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 13 12:38:42 2011. Actually, to be fair, I don't think the MIT example is so pronounced only because MIT selects for high IQ. I think it also selects against people with high sex drives, especially for women, who need to focus heavily on their studies and careers. High achieving people aren't just smart, they are also driven and they are very good at "delaying gratification." Smart but hot-blooded people may not fare so well.This is my next avenue to research. |
|
|
| (764562) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 13 14:26:10 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 12:58:24 2011. IQ is also not a great measure of intelligence, just an indication you can game an IQ test. |
|
|
| (764569) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Apr 13 14:33:55 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Apr 13 14:26:10 2011. FALSE! How does one "game" an IQ test? |
|
|
| (764572) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 14:43:37 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Apr 13 14:33:55 2011. Actually, familiarity with an IQ test does lower their g-loading, even the RPM tests like these.Knowledge of how to do problems like that renders the test less accurate. That being said, there is really not much one can do to "game" an IQ test, especially one like that, to significantly boost one's score; it would be even hard to cheat the comprehensive tests like the WISC/WAIS on the really g-loaded problems. |
|
|
| (764576) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Apr 13 15:01:11 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 13:13:23 2011. Meh. |
|
|
| (764584) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Apr 13 15:06:44 2011, in response to IQ and Sex, posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 12:26:28 2011. Women, weither they admit it or not, are hard wired to want the caveman prototype of strong and hot headed. Back in the days where people were far less civilized and might meant right, a strong man meant strong kids plus protection/power for the woman. This explains why some ghetto/trailer dude with a rap sheet as long as an R68 can end up with mulitple kids and willing partners and the guy busting his balls at MIT is watching skin-a-max.I don't honestly think this hurdle will ever be overcome. Being autistic women don't want to be within 100 miles of me, nevermind in bed, so I quite frankly don't care what happens to humanity once I'm gone. |
|
|
| (764594) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Apr 13 15:42:39 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Apr 13 15:06:44 2011. Don't take this too personally, but someone legalize prostitution before men with this kind of mentality go on killing sprees. |
|
|
| (764597) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Apr 13 15:59:47 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Apr 13 15:42:39 2011. LOL, I'm too much of a hendoist and a pussy to do such a thing. I don't "hate" people, more like indifferent. The way I see it, I was born and I will die and since more likely than not my existance isn't going to make an impact on the world, I midas well cruise along and ride trains....:O) |
|
|
| (764599) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 16:30:35 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Apr 13 15:06:44 2011. Women, weither they admit it or not, are hard wired to want the caveman prototype of strong and hot headed.Haha I wouldn't quite go that far, I find a lot of women are less attracted to the total jock prick (is that redundant?) type than others. But overall, yes, more alpha is better than less alpha. Back in the days where people were far less civilized and might meant right, a strong man meant strong kids plus protection/power for the woman. Strong ≈ high status and important for quite some time. But the thing to remember is that Europe, the Near East and East Asia have been civilized for a long time (~5000 years continuously in the case of China). Being important, at least enough to raise a brood, didn't depend on being "big tough guy" as much as it did for hunter-gatherer, and to a less extent, pastoral societies. Brains become more important. Hence that's why these groups became less masculine. I don't honestly think this hurdle will ever be overcome. Being autistic women don't want to be within 100 miles of me, nevermind in bed, Actually, people with Asperger's and other ASD's have made several useful contributions to human kind. Like with other traits that persist in a minority of the population and "disorders" (like ADD), it evolved because it does something helpful for the population overall (orchid theory). It's been said that ASD are just as exaggeration of masculine traits, not socially but intellectually, traits that (in moderation) proved useful to developing Europe. Interestingly, ASD's are much more common in males. |
|
|
| (764602) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Apr 13 16:49:14 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 16:30:35 2011. ASD is generally thought to be an exaggaration of the male brain. I'm a very unemotional person and women and even many men are put off by my extreme lack of emotional output in communication.Women, to put it short, find us distant and creepy. Not to stereotype, but women are "feelers" and ASD is a condition that often stunts emotional growth (sometimes I feel it within myself). they [girls] are also very very put off by "oddness", which as you've seen personally, I can bring the oddness :O). Whatever the internal case my be, I can only run on my observations. |
|
|
| (764606) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 17:08:58 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 16:30:35 2011. But the thing to remember is that Europe, the Near East and East Asia have been civilized for a long time (~5000 years continuously in the case of China). Being important, at least enough to raise a brood, didn't depend on being "big tough guy" as much as it did for hunter-gatherer, and to a less extent, pastoral societies. Brains become more important. Hence that's why these groups became less masculine.One of the people at Siggy's was claiming that the earlier a particular group developed settled agricultural civilization, the better off it is today. My response: stable agricultural civilization first arose in the Middle East. How'd that work out for them? My blog |
|
|
| (764614) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Apr 13 17:36:40 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 17:08:58 2011. The Middle East was quite advanced until Islam came along. It gained popularity first amongst the nomads in Arabia and by the power of the sword they laid waste to Persia, The Punjab, The Levant, etc... |
|
|
| (764625) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 13 18:31:35 2011, in response to IQ and Sex, posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 12:26:28 2011. Interesting. I was going to ask you if there is a relationship between certain body types and IQ. I think I heard that men with broader shoulders tend to be less intelligent than guys with narrower shoulders. Had something to do with testosterone, and hip/waist/shoulder ratio.In other words, guys born with more of a natural v-shape are less intelligent than guys with a straight build. |
|
|
| (764629) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 13 19:11:53 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Fred G on Wed Apr 13 13:05:55 2011. Oh, I thought this was gonna be about how smarter people are better in bed. Because they are. Awesomely so.Smart women can't give a blowjob. But they seem to have more self-confidence and have higher sex drives. Older women also have much higher sex drives than younger girls. I'd say that a woman is at her sexual peak between 30-65 and wants sex daily. In that age bracket, most women can go go go. I sometimes wonder how a 55 year-old man can be sexually compatible with a 55 year-old woman. |
|
|
| (764631) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Wed Apr 13 19:14:50 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Apr 13 15:06:44 2011.  OMG, I thought I was the only one that had ASD! And I agree! Although for some reason I never scared woman off, well, not black woman/Spanish woman at least. |
|
|
| (764638) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Apr 13 19:28:06 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Apr 13 15:42:39 2011. I agree and disagree. Killing sprees are going to happen anyway, or not happen but prostitution should be legalized. |
|
|
| (764639) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 19:28:29 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 13 19:11:53 2011. I sometimes wonder how a 55 year-old man can be sexually compatible with a 55 year-old woman.Viagra, Levitra, Cialis. My blog |
|
|
| (764640) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 13 19:30:46 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Apr 13 15:06:44 2011. This explains why some ghetto/trailer dude with a rap sheet as long as an R68 can end up with mulitple kids and willing partners and the guy busting his balls at MIT is watching skin-a-max.I don't see it that way. While low-income people probably start having sex at a much younger age, I'm sure the 35 year-old MIT guy will have a happier and healthier sex life than most people. |
|
|
| (764641) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 13 19:35:38 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 19:28:29 2011. Yeah, ED drugs probably help. But I can't imagine drugs alone can make a man what his woman needs in bed. |
|
|
| (764648) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Apr 13 19:55:33 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Apr 13 17:36:40 2011. The Middle East was quite advanced well after Islam came along. Some of the great human achievements of the medieval period were by Muslim scholars.It seems to me though that most of these achievements were an extension of Persian culture. The golden age of the Caliphate was during that time that it was based in Baghdad and heavily influenced by Persia. Iran is probably the most intelligent of the countries in that part of the world, despite its current government. Civilization began in Mesopotamia, adjacent to Persia, not in more primitive Arabia where Islam began. Iraq is probably screwed up now thanks to centuries of being a pawn of empires. |
|
|
| (764713) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 22:43:50 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 16:30:35 2011. But the thing to remember is that Europe, the Near East and East Asia have been civilized for a long time (~5000 years continuously in the case of China). Being important, at least enough to raise a brood, didn't depend on being "big tough guy" as much as it did for hunter-gatherer, and to a less extent, pastoral societies. Brains become more important. Hence that's why these groups became less masculine.I don't agree that men of any particular racial/ethnic group are more or less masculine than men from other groups. Now, there are some pretty much undeniable physical differences among groups. For instance, men of West African descent have a relatively high proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, which in part accounts for their dominance of sports like football and basketball, while East Asian men tend to be smaller than other. It is tempting to take the next step and conclude that men who have more masculine physical traits are more masculine, period. What this approach overlooks is the fact that masculinity is as much mental as physical. My blog |
|
|
| (764714) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 22:48:27 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Apr 13 17:08:58 2011. Well, let's look at where agriculture started: Mesopotamia (today Iraq and Syria), Meso-America (today Mexico and Central America), and China. Yup, that theory is obviously false.Brown peoples started agriculture and (with the exception of China), subsequently civilization. I have a suspicion that perhaps today's people there are not the original inhabitants, or the population has undergone considerable changes since then. |
|
|
| (764715) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 22:56:50 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 13 18:31:35 2011. The article I linked to discusses that testosterone depresses IQ, so yes, on average guys with more athletic, physically masculine features are less intelligent. Don't tell Chris Langan, a man with an IQ of ~200 that though: But the body type aspect sort of runs with the old ectomorph/endomorph/mesomorph hypothesis. I suspect that is true inasmuch that higher testosterone favors increased muscularity. |
|
|
| (764718) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 23:05:14 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 13 19:11:53 2011. Smart women can't give a blowjob.I'm not so sure I can confirm that. :P But they seem to have more self-confidence and have higher sex drives. Actually no, according to the data smart women (well above IQ 90, anyway) tend to have lower sex drives than their less intelligent sisters. Unless we're talking as compared to the far left side of the bell curve, where perhaps sex drive again decreases, but this time as you go down. Older women also have much higher sex drives than younger girls. I'd say that a woman is at her sexual peak between 30-65 and wants sex daily. In that age bracket, most women can go go go. I've heard this quite a bit and still, so far, I can only say it's anecdotal. I'm not sure if this is true, yet. |
|
|
| (764719) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 23:05:59 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Wed Apr 13 19:14:50 2011. Haha I have a feeling that among railfans you're going to find it's very common. |
|
|
| (764720) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Apr 13 23:07:44 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Apr 13 15:06:44 2011. Man, that's a highly misanthropic post. And you're wrong to boot. |
|
|
| (764721) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 23:07:57 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 13 19:30:46 2011. Haha don't be so sure—especially if they end up with their likely often asexual MIT women. He may be happier, but only because his sexual "needs" are less. |
|
|
| (764736) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Apr 14 00:06:27 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Apr 13 19:11:53 2011. I sometimes wonder how a 55 year-old man can be sexually compatible with a 55 year-old woman.They're not; that's why ya hire a 20 year old kid who can hit the ceiling. your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (764737) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Apr 14 00:07:45 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Apr 13 19:55:33 2011. The Middle East was quite advanced well after Islam came along. Some of the great human achievements of the medieval period were by Muslim scholars.It seems to me though that most of these achievements were an extension of Persian culture. The golden age of the Caliphate was during that time that it was based in Baghdad and heavily influenced by Persia. Iran is probably the most intelligent of the countries in that part of the world, despite its current government.(emphasis added) Not the modern country. The average IQ of Iran is only 84, very close to the average for N. Africans/S. Asians as a whole, and about the same of American blacks. Civilization began in Mesopotamia, adjacent to Persia, not in more primitive Arabia where Islam began. Iraq is probably screwed up now thanks to centuries of being a pawn of empires. It did. And as you point out, the Middle East continued to contribute to civilization well into the days of the Caliphate (not so sure after the Turks arrived)—while (Western) Europe languished in the Dark Ages. I suspect that the average IQ of the ancient Middle Easterners may have been much higher than today's peoples, owing to their considerable contributions to human civilization (not the least of which inventing it to begin with). The Arabs, never really being civilized before Muhammad, probably didn't evolve in response to civilization like their Mesopotamian or Persian counterparts. It is possible that as the Arabs settled these areas they depressed the IQ's of the people. Of course, it is also possible that the reason that Middle Eastern contributions fell off is because they simply hit their limit. Look at India, the average IQ there is about the same, but we all know a lot of smart Indians (and Middle Easterners for that matter). Even with an average IQ of 84, that still leaves a significant segment of the population with much higher IQ's. The intellectual demands of ancient life was probably much less than today's allowing a less intelligent people (vs Europeans) to accomplish much. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|