Gender, Height, And IQ

[Bobcat Fraser]

A recent study claims that women's IQs have surpassed men's IQs for the first time in a hundred years. The study's subjects live in varied modern countries. Canada and the USA are included. James Flynn believes that multitasking might have contributed to the increase.
Link To The Story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173808/Women-overtake-men-IQ-tests-time-100-years-multitasking.html

A blogger on Psychology Today claims that women always had higher IQs, but tests never revealed this because the ordinary man is taller than the ordinary woman. IOW, it's height, rather than gender, that accounts for the slight IQ disparity between the sexes. He believes that 5'4 women are smarter than 5'4 men and that 5'10 women are smarter than 5'10 men. Of course, his theory would posit that taller women are smarter than both shorter men and shorter women.
Link To The Blog:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200901/why-men-are-more-intelligent-women

What do you all think? I don't think that gender plays that much of a role in IQ. It all comes down to the individual, of course. The common knowledge and conventional wisdom is that males tend to have higher spatial IQs while females tend to have higher verbal IQs. That probably is true, but there are a lot of exceptions to that rule. From my experience in school, the best students of both genders excelled in the "boys' subjects", as well as the "girls' subjects". As far as the height thing, it was my understanding that the gender IQ disparity had more to do with brain size and brain structure. It's doubtful that runway models are all that much smarter than male jockeys.

[Stefan]

A blogger on Psychology Today claims that women always had higher IQs, but tests never revealed this because the ordinary man is taller than the ordinary woman. IOW, it's height, rather than gender, that accounts for the slight IQ disparity between the sexes. He believes that 5'4 women are smarter than 5'4 men and that 5'10 women are smarter than 5'10 men. Of course, his theory would posit that taller women are smarter than both shorter men and shorter women.


I find this to be a paradox with what I've observed in the real world. The smartest people in my high school were short. The valedictorian was only a girl of 4ft 10 in. The salutatorian was only a girl of 5 feet. I had the third highest S.A.T scores in my school, and my height is only 5ft 6in. The highest S.A.T scores go to males of 5ft 8in - 5ft 10in. From what I've read it is pretty much widely accepted that intelligence is mostly a ratio of brain mass vs. body mass. This is because of the enormous energy requirements of the brain. Other factors include how particular neural pathways are structured, and the efficiency of particular brain tissues. It's possibly there is a correlation between intelligence and height, caused by some linked genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_linkage), however I doubt there is a high enough correlation to consider such a phenomenon as a rule rather than a matter of variation.

[CelticViking]

Iq test- 180
Height- 6'2-6'3

[MarkyMark]

Iq test- 180
Height- 6'2-6'3

http://i.imgur.com/1TOTi.gif

[Skrondsze]

Iq test- 180
Height- 6'2-6'3


Lol, RLY?

[Skrondsze]

http://i.imgur.com/1TOTi.gif

haha we quoted at the same time but about different lines of her post.

[Bronze]

Is height really associated with IQ? ive seen some articles about it but i dont think it was ever confirmed as more than a theory.

[Drawing-slim]

I thought the oppossite.
Smaller people i thought would be smarter and healthier on everage.
Isnt that why they portray alliens very small and far more intelligent in movies!?

[Panopticon]

There is a correlation between height and IQ. However, it's not very large, just a few points in IQ. Satoshi Kanazawa is completely wrong though. Men are by default taller than women and will due to sexual dymorphism always be taller on average.

But the height-IQ correlation only works in comparison to same gender. A woman that is 5'10 will be smarter than a 5'10 man, but one also has to realize that 5'10 for a woman is the equal of being a 6'2-6'3 man. Therefore, it's unfair to compare someone who is taller than the average for their gender against someone who is just about average for ones own gender and therefore would also, most likely, be average in IQ. A 5'10 woman is therefore also not going to be smarter than a 6'2-6'3 man, because they are just as tall in comparison to the mean heights of their genders.

Satoshi Kanazawa doesn't take that in account, if his ideas were true, then women would have surpassed men in IQ and in height, and that's not happening, men are still 10-14 cm taller than women on average.

I'm not so sure if it's correct though. Men are vastly outnumbering women in sciences, business, politics, music and arts, etc., and always have done so, and their contributions in those areas are also often much larger on the individual level. This is also despite the push of society for women to succeed (along with the lack of that for men) and the gender quotas and other legislations that gives women benefits. However, the IQ of women is much more stable, the IQ of men is much less stable. The IQ of men deviates more and there are therefore more male retards and more male geniuses, while there are less female retards and less female geniuses.

I think this article written by Dr. Richard Lynn himself is good. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html


Iq test- 180
Height- 6'2-6'3

Are you by any chance a member of Mega Society? With an IQ like that, you should be, if not part of Mega Society, then at least some other high IQ society, and not just Mensa, but some really elitist high IQ society.

[Pallantides]

IQ - 112(officially tested and evaluated)
Height - 1.82m
Gender - Male

[Edelmann]

Who was it who theorized that short people are more intelligent because their blood "circulates faster"? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

[Insuperable]

Who was it who theorized that short people are more intelligent because their blood "circulates faster"? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

William Harvey?

[el22]

There hasn't been IQ tests in my country, but on those few online that I tried results varied between 136 and 142 (and I skipped language questions, because my English is not very good). Anyway, I know for sure that I'm 1.80cm.

I don't think there is correlation between height and IQ, because it doesn't seem that the greatest ideas are coming from NBA players. And there are very smart short people out there. But between genders definitely is.

[Siegfried]

IQ Test Posted By Sigur Ros Results-141
Height-183 cm
Gender-Male

[Linet]

I dont think that height :yippee has to do anything with IQ :nerd:, i suppose you all have clever people around of all the shapes and lenths as well as stupid ones.

[Insuperable]

I have to ask two redicoulous questions
When you were 18 or 16 and wanted to get driving license is it in your country obliged to take an IQ test? ( when I had to get medical papers )
If so can that be counted as taking an offcial IQ test in a controlled environment?
They put me in a room. Had 20 minutes, 40 questions. Of course all of them were "spatial" orientated

[Linet]

We cant get diriving lesson before 18 and no, no IQ test is needed :nono:. If you are not clever enough, you wont be able to pass the exams anyway :wink:

[Insuperable]

We cant get diriving lesson before 18 and no, no IQ test is needed :nono:. If you are not clever enough, you wont be able to pass the exams anyway :wink:

Lol. One does not need to be clever to pass those exams considering how many idiots have driving license

[Linet]

Lol. One does not need to be clever to pass those exams considering how many idiots have driving license

True, but even with an IQ test i suppose they wouldnt permit a license to people with considerably low IQ...

[Pallantides]

Either some people here are taking untrustworthy internet IQ tests or they are lying about their results, I mean is there anyone who don't have a mensa level IQ here... expect for me?

I mean with my 112 IQ I'm way below average on the Apricity IQ standard:P

[Panopticon]

I have to ask two redicoulous questions
When you were 18 or 16 and wanted to get driving license is it in your country obliged to take an IQ test? ( when I had to get medical papers )
If so can that be counted as taking an offcial IQ test in a controlled environment?
They put me in a room. Had 20 minutes, 40 questions. Of course all of them were "spatial" orientated

No, you don't need to take an IQ test to get a driving license here.

It probably can be, although I doubt it's as good as an IQ test taken through school, test from a high IQ society, psychiatrist, etc. Moreover, you were only tested for spatial reasoning, which is only one part of IQ, albeit also the most commonly tested for nowadays.

[safinator]

Women smarter than man?
I think they put more effort in studies but really smart i would say no.....

[Insuperable]

True, but even with an IQ test i suppose they wouldnt permit a license to people with considerably low IQ...

Yes that is true



After the test they do not give you a standard IQ score but grades from 1 to 5 or F to A. 1 is F in Croatia while in some countries 1 is A.
Anyway who scores 1 fails and can not have a driving licence. Everything above is a pass just like in school or college.

[el22]

Either some people here are taking untrustworthy internet IQ tests or they are lying about their results, I mean is there anyone who don't have a very high IQ?

I mean with my 112 IQ I'm way below on Apricity IQ standard:P

If I wanted to lie, I could had said that I have an certified IQ of 200. I know they aren't reliable, but it's the only data I have.

And in my country you can do almost anything by bribing (so no IQ needed)

[Linet]

Either some people here are taking untrustworthy internet IQ tests or they are lying about their results, I mean is there anyone who don't have a mensa level IQ here... expect for me?

I mean with my 112 IQ I'm way below average on the Apricity IQ standard:P

You are an elf :unicorn ....you intelligence is beyond human understanding :levitate:

[el22]

Women smarter than man?
I think they put more effort in studies but really smart i would say no.....

Who said woman are smarter than man?
I see a gold opportunity to enrage woman here...

[CelticViking]

http://i.imgur.com/1TOTi.gif

Naw cute :)


Lol, RLY?

Yes, I'm almost taller than the door(6'5). Some of my friends and family are way taller than the door. I like freak people out by wearing high heels but sadly I'm a clumsy geek haha.



Are you by any chance a member of Mega Society? With an IQ like that, you should be, if not part of Mega Society, then at least some other high IQ society, and not just Mensa, but some really elitist high IQ society.

No, I don't make a big deal. I'm just a farming maiden but I do love to read and play chess with my family. I used to try read about 3 books a day and I remember when the last Harry Potter book came out,I read them all in one day. I've done lots of IQ test some online but two times with professional people. It is mainly just shapes, missing words and puzzles. Internet says Abraham Lincoln's IQ was 128, Napoleon Bonaparte was 145 and I think they were smart. I don't think IQ matters much. I think INTJ people are normally smart and also ENTJ,INTP and ENTP.

[RagnarLodbrok666]

IQ-122

height-5'6

weight-150

[Drawing-slim]

im seruously trying reflecting on all the tall people i've come to know in my life
I'm thinking more during poker games over the years..:D

The game itself plaid for somewhat big amount of cash is a strong IQ test i believe.

[Nurzat]

about the correlation between gender, height and IQ:

B S

[Siegfried]

Either some people here are taking untrustworthy internet IQ tests or they are lying about their results, I mean is there anyone who don't have a mensa level IQ here... expect for me?

I mean with my 112 IQ I'm way below average on the Apricity IQ standard:P

Any websites you could recommend?

[Panopticon]

No, I don't make a big deal. I'm just a farming maiden but I do love to read and play chess with my family. I used to try read about 3 books a day and I remember when the last Harry Potter book came out,I read them all in one day. I've done lots of IQ test some online but two times with professional people. It is mainly just shapes, missing words and puzzles. Internet says Abraham Lincoln's IQ was 128, Napoleon Bonaparte was 145 and I think they were smart. I don't think IQ matters much. I think INTJ people are normally smart and also ENTJ,INTP and ENTP.

Just a farming maiden? :D I'd recommend that you do so, to be able to brag about membership in a high IQ society is great for a CV.

Concerning MBTI, aptitude and IQ; http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55120

[Graham]

Either some people here are taking untrustworthy internet IQ tests or they are lying about their results, I mean is there anyone who don't have a mensa level IQ here... expect for me?

I mean with my 112 IQ I'm way below average on the Apricity IQ standard:P

That's much higher than average, which makes you a smart person.

http://www.highiqpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/what-does-my-iq-mean1.jpg

Took an online test. It isn't the same & is worthless.

[Insuperable]

The average IQ for the Apricity is 150.:laugh:

[Stefan]

I mean with my 112 IQ I'm way below average on the Apricity IQ standard:P

As far as I know, mine is likely in the 115-125 range. So nope, you're not the only one here. ;) I think most people here are above-average, at least, but I'm unsure about most having an IQ over 130. That's two standard deviations above the mean. On a normal distribution when μ (mean) = 100, and the sd = 15, it would consist of the upper 4.55% of the white population. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule)

Also consider that IQ tests have become more difficult over each generation, because each generation has a higher average and all generations have a white population mean of 100. So somebody who scores 100 on a new test, as a child, will score better on older tests. Somebody who scored higher on older tests, will score lower on newer tests. This has mostly to do with nutrition.

Just so we get an idea where Apricians stand. ;)

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Images/OccsX.jpg

[Graham]

The average IQ for the Apricity is 150.:laugh:

Well considering only 1 in a million, have an IQ of 171 or more. That would be something special. :p

[CelticViking]

Shorter leaders

Benito Mussolini
Harry Truman
Rutherford B. Hayes
William Henry Harrison
James K. Polk
Zachary Taylor
Ulysses S. Grant
John Quincy Adams
John Adams
William McKinley
Benjamin Harrison
Martin Van Buren
James Madison
William Morris Hughes

[Insuperable]

As far as I know, mine is likely in the 115-125 range. So nope, you're not the only one here. ;) I think most people here are above-average, at least, but I'm unsure about most having an IQ over 130. That's two standard deviations above the mean. On a normal distribution when μ (mean) = 100, and the sd = 15, it would consist of the upper 4.55% of the white population. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule)

Also consider that IQ tests have become more difficult over each generation, because each generation has a higher average and all generations have a white population mean of 100. So somebody who scores 100 on a new test, as a child, will score better on older tests. Somebody who scored higher on older tests, will score lower on newer tests. This has mostly to do with nutrition.

Just so we get an idea where Apricians stand. ;)

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Images/OccsX.jpg

In that chart of yours elec. engineers can have an Iq of 129.
I will soon have my ( late ) masters degree in electrical engineering so I guess I can take that group
I got 129 on a test safinator gave me to take some time ago
But I doubt I would go under that percentile ( related to elec. eng)

[Insuperable]

--

[el22]

The average IQ for the Apricity is 150.:laugh:

Sure. Threads such as Classify... are very IQ bound :cool:

[Stefan]

In that chart of yours elec. engineers can have an Iq of 129.
I will soon have my ( late ) masters degree in electrical engineering so I guess I can take that group
I got 129 on a test safinator gave me to take some time ago
But I doubt I would go under that percentile ( related to elec. eng)

After a certain point, the actual benefits of a higher IQ vs. hard-work and dedication become smaller and smaller. Just think of the many scientists who won nobel prizes and wouldn't have gotten into today's Mensa. Richard Feynman, for example, had a 125 IQ; his sister an Astrophysicist - Joan Feynman, a 124 IQ. Considering today's average would be much higher than the average back then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect), their IQs could have been much less than even that. I don't really think IQ accurately measures the entire scope of intelligence anyway. Although, there is a correlation.

[Óttar]

I took an official IQ test several years ago and got 123. I took one online and got 140. I am 5'10.

[Artek]

I took a complex IQ test in mental health centre.
It turned out to be something like 136 if I remember correctly but with some serious concentration issues so learning ability isn't as high as expecting from such result. Anyway, I don't have any serious reason to complain about.
Height is something like 193 cm, caused rather by genetic inheritance by itself than superior nutrition and doing sports.

[Γέλως]

IQ is like dick size. Everybody has it bigger on the internet...

[Queen B]

IQ - 141
Height - 174cm
gender - female

[Artek]

IQ is like dick size. Everybody has it bigger on the internet...
It's true, but we should consider an option that such fora like Apricity tend gather more intelligent people on average:D. I bet we have some geniuses over here.

[Γέλως]

It's true, but we should consider an option that such fora like Apricity tend gather more intelligent people on average:D. I bet we have some geniuses over here.Yes, Nazis are really smart...

[Pallantides]

Well I don't trust any form of IQ tests now... after seeing Artek's results










... I'm kidding:tongue

[Insuperable]

It's true, but we should consider an option that such fora like Apricity tend gather more intelligent people on average:D. I bet we have some geniuses over here.

99% people on TA is stuck in 1920s studying Baltids Dinarids and Nordids

[Artek]

Well I don't trust any form of IQ tests now... after seeing Artek's results
... I'm kidding:tongue
I don't know about what scale we need to consider right now, mine is rather Cattell (so it tends to show the higher amounts of IQ because of the different Math formula). In Wechsler one, result is respectively lower, so something like 125.

[Stefan]

99% people on TA is stuck in 1920s studying Baltids Dinarids and Nordids

This guy has a high IQ, yet his theories (more accurately hypotheses) are :loco: and unscientific. Intelligence and wisdom aren't synonymous.

http://www.superscholar.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/christopher-langan.jpg

[Artek]

Indeed.
Intelligence is like a collecting(gathering) ability but wisdom helps us to distinguish useful things from that useless ones. That's why many intelligent people are using their intelligence for bullshit.

[Insuperable]

This guy has a high IQ, yet his theories (more accurately hypotheses) are :loco: and unscientific. Intelligence and wisdom aren't synonymous.

http://www.superscholar.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/christopher-langan.jpg

His aproach is philosophical.
When dealing with anthropology we are dealing with science and old physical anthropology is not that.

[Dilberth]

His aproach is philosophical.
When dealing with anthropology we are dealing with science and old physical anthropology is not that.

Physical anthropology is rejected formally,under the strong USA pressure.It isn't rejected in Russia for example.

[Stefan]

His aproach is philosophical.
When dealing with anthropology we are dealing with science and old physical anthropology is not that.

I think most people who study taxonomic anthropology understand that it hasn't been updated and is hardly applicable with our modern understanding of populations. At least, I hope they understand that. From an epistemological point of view, that doesn't make it useless to study.

[Insuperable]

Physical anthropology is rejected formally,under the strong USA pressure.It isn't rejected in Russia for example.

Modern physical anthropology or biological anthropology is not rejected anywhere since it falls under the exact science and old physical anthropology is rejected not by governments but by biological anthropology itself.
So about which physical anthropology are you talking about?

[Insuperable]

I think most people who study taxonomic anthropology understand that it hasn't been updated and is hardly applicable with our modern understanding of populations. At least, I hope they understand that. From an epistemological point of view, that doesn't make it useless to study.

I have listed ten times reasons why it is not applicable as an exact science and why it has no purpose and why updating will have no sense when dealing with with so narrow classifications of humans

[Dilberth]

Modern physical anthropology or biological anthropology is not rejected anywhere since it falls under the exact science and old physical anthropology is rejected not by governments but by biological anthropology itself.
So about which physical anthropology are you talking about?

Not this discussion again...
I just don't see a reason why you need to mention it on every second post of yours,and even on some taxonomy threads.If you don't buy it,you could just ignore it.

[Stefan]

I have listed ten times reasons why it is not applicable as an exact science and why it has no purpose and why updating will have no sense when dealing with with so narrow classifications of humans

I think it is similar to saying there is no use in understanding Linnaeus' thoughts on taxonomies. Certainly there is a use, to understand why something is wrong, and what about it was correct. To do that, one must understand the laws and reasoning behind such a theory.

As for whether typologies can be structured for humans, based on morphological rather than molecular characteristics, I certainly think that has not been verifiably disputed, as of yet. You won't find an African skull in a European population, and vice-versa. One can identify the ancestral origins of a human being, by analyzing the metrics of a skull, with an overwhelming degree of accuracy. Certainly there is a component to typological anthropology that is predictive and scientific, despite the other flaws.

[Insuperable]

I think it is similar to saying there is no use in understanding Linnaeus' thoughts on taxonomies. Certainly there is a use, to understand why something is wrong, and what about it was correct. To do that, one must understand the laws and reasoning behind such a theory.

As for whether typologies can be structured for humans, based on morphological rather than molecular characteristics, I certainly think that has not been verifiably disputed, as of yet. You won't find an African skull in a European population, and vice-versa. One can identify the ancestral origins of a human being, by analyzing the metrics of a skull, with an overwhelming degree of accuracy. Certainly there is a component to typological anthropology that is predictive and scientific, despite the other flaws.

And who said anything about that? Do I maybe need to write like this
...NARROWER CLASSIFICATIONS?

In criminology and forensics for example anthropometry is used to distinguished between Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids...
No argue about that.

For example there is absolutely no reason for a Borreby classified person from Denmark and Nordid classifed person from Sweden to have different genetic makeup. The most shortest example answer. Why is that so I have written so many damn times and it seems that people are unable to understand such a small sentence.

[Stefan]

And who said anything about that? Do I maybe need to write like this
...NARROWER CLASSIFICATIONS?

In criminology and forensics for example anthropometry is used to distinguished between Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids...
No argue about that.

The same men who came up with Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid used terminology like Mediterranean, Alpine, and Nordic.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/tutorials/pglossary.htm


a presumed human "race" consisting of Europeans and other closely related people. The classification is based on the discredited typological model. The term "Caucasoid" was derived from the Caucasus Mountains on the southeast fringe of Europe between the Black and Caspian Seas. This region was once thought to be the homeland of Indo-Europeans.

Anyway, I doubt men like Coon thought a Borreby from Denmark was more related to a Bruenn from Britain than a Nordic from Sweden. Genetics was in its infancy, but much was understood even then. They probably acknowledged that such peoples were mixtures from various ancestral populations. What we see today are just manifestations of the ancient populations. That is why in his book, "The Races of Europe" he was speaking about ancestral groups of the Neolithic, Mesolithic, and even Paleolithic eras. The 'evidence' was based on skeletons of these peoples and historical account. Yes, it's certainly not as hard a science as molecular anthropology, but it was still anthropology nevertheless, which isn't strictly a natural science, but also a humanity.

[Stefan]

edit

[Insuperable]

The same men who came up with Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid used terminology like Mediterranean, Alpine, and Nordic.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/tutorials/pglossary.htm


Well there you go. Thank you for disproving yourself. I did not even know that these terms are officially disputed by scientists. I thought that they are still used today because of applications for forensics anthropology and indeed some type of basic racial anthropometry is taught when it is needed for example to identify skeletons, skulls...


In the United States the term Caucasoid is commonly associated with notions of racial typology and modern usage is generally associated with racial notions and therefore discouraged, as it is potentially offensive. The term "Caucasoid" is still used in certain disciplines such as anthropology, craniometry, epidemiology, forensic medicine and forensic archaeology.

Regarding so narrow classifications

The typological model was built on the assumption that humans can be assigned to a race based on similar physical traits. However, the typological model in anthropology is now thoroughly discredited,[8] and current mainstream thinking is that the morphological traits are due to simple variations in specific regions, and are the effect of climatic selective pressures.[4] This debate is covered in more detail in the article on race.

[Stefan]

The present book is a textbook designed for the use of college students who have had or are taking a preliminary course in anthropology. Enough of it is, however, written in a non-technical way, so that students of allied disciplines may use it for reference. The subject matter to be studied consists of the body of statistical material collected by the world's physical anthropologists which concern the somatic character of peoples belonging to the white race. This material may be divided into (A), skeletons; and (B), metrical data and observations on the living..

By the use of this material we propose to follow the history of the white race from its Pleistocene1 beginnings to the present, and to provide a classification of sub-races which will be fully in accord with the facts as we now know them. We submit the thesis that man, as a domestic animal, is extremely variable; and that he has subjected himself, in his wanderings, to all of the environments of the earth, and hence is subject to environmental modification in a way unequalled by any other species. We further suggest that man, through his development of human cultures, has modi-fled his bodily form by his own devices.

During the Pleistocene period there were several species of primates which had attained some degree of human culture, by the acquisition of stone implements, of fire, and of speech. In the present post-glacial or interglacial period, in conformity with the general reduction in faunal varieties, man has been reduced to a single species, unique in a single genus. During the Pleistocene one species, at least, had developed in the manner of a foetalized terrestrial ape, and it is that species which carries today the main stem of Homo sapiens. Other species, including the fossil men of Java, of Peking, and Homo neanderthalensis, had developed at the same time into a heavier, hypermasculine endocrine form, with a luxuriance of jaws, teeth, and bony crests.

We propose to demonstrate that these non-foetalized species did not wholly die out, but that at least one of them was absorbed into the main human stem, at some time during the Middle, or the initial part of the Late, Pleistocene. From this amalgamation was produced the large, rugged, and relatively un-foetalized group of Upper Palaeolithic men in Europe, North Africa, and northern Asia. This type of man passed over Bering Straits in early post-glacial times, if not earlier, to provide the basic ge-netic stock from which the American Indian developed, in combination with later arrivals. From a branch of this hyperborean group there evolved, in northern Asia, the ancestral strain of the entire specialized mongoloid family.

We suggest that the ancestors of the whites in their major form developed during pluvial periods of the Pleistocene in parts of what is now the arid zone reaching from the Sahara to northern India; that in post-glacial times many were forced out of these homes by desiccation, and that some of them originated agriculture and animal husbandry in northeastern Africa and southwestern Asia. From these centers agricultural pioneers followed post-glacial zones of climate into Europe, gradually encroaching upon the lands formerly glaciated. In most of the regions which they occupied they greatly outnumbered the descendants of the hunters and fishers whose ancestors had clung on since glacial times, and many of whom had followed the retreating ice toward its last melting nuclei.

The occupation of all arable lands, and those suitable for grazing, was not completed in a century. or in a millennium; the process was a gradual one, and the withdrawal of the earlier inhabitants into environmentally protected fastnesses equally gradual. The entry of food-producers from Asia and Africa did not take a single route or involve a single people; it was a complex sequence of migrations through several ports of entry. The various strains of food-producers mixed with the food-gatherers whom they encountered, and with each other, until, in our own time, not a single group of complete food-gatherers has remained in white man's territory.

The food-producers seem to have been variants on one central racial theme, the basic Mediterranean. This basic Mediterranean stock varied in many respects, especially in stature and in pigmentation, but in its essential qualities, which segregated it from non-whites, it was remarkably uniform. We do not know that the survivors of the food-gatherers whom the Mediterranean food-producers absorbed were white in soft-part morphology, and there is some evidence that some had begun to evolve in a mongoloid, others perhaps in a negroid, direction. Such variations may be seen within the present composite white racial amalgam.

At any rate, the main conclusion of this study will be that the present races of Europe are derived from a blend of (A), food-producing peoples from Asia and Africa, of basically Mediterranean racial form, with (B), the descendants of interglacial and glacial food-gatherers, produced in turn by a blending of basic Homo sapiens, related to the remote ancestor of the Mediterraneans, with some non-sapiens species of general Neanderthaloid form. The actions and interactions of environment, selection, migration, and human culture upon the various entities within this amalgam, have produced the white race in its present complexity.

In view of these circumstances, the exact classification of living whites into sub-races, such as Nordics, Alpines, Dinaric, and so on, need not be made at this point, but can await (A) the historical study of the white race which will follow in Chapters II to VII; and (B) the survey of the living as a whole which will be made in Chapter VIII. In Chapters IX m XII, inclusive, we will make a more detailed regional survey of the living peoples of Europe to supplement the preceding sections.

It is quite interesting how Coon predicted Neanderthal admixture, well before genetic results confirmed this. Human typology is useless though. :rolleyes:



Well there you go. Thank you for disproving yourself. I did not even know that these terms are officially disputed by scientists. I thought that they are still used today because of applications for forensics anthropology and indeed some type of basic racial anthropometry is taught when it is needed for example to identify skeletons, skulls...



Regarding so narrow classifications

Such a movement was more politically motivated than scientific. Notice how the last few typological anthropology works coincide with the de-racism of the United States; during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Do you agree with the idea that the human species is monotypic and most variation is individual? I think it is quite clear morphological characteristics can and have been attributed to human beings in groups. They're not as accurate descriptors of ancestry and similarity as molecular studies(i.e genetics) , but certainly they have their uses beside that, as they do in large taxonomies.

[Insuperable]

It is quite interesting how Coon predicted Neanderthal admixture, well before genetic results confirmed this. Human typology is useless though. :rolleyes:
Totally useless
Why drive this ( typology )
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/606/fredflintstoncar.jpg
when you can drive this ( genetics )
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7379/taxififthelement1425422.jpg

Since according to many both lead to the same goal why do not you all start wasting your time on modern stuff and not on fossile or is it much easier to look at people?


Such a movement was more politically motivated than scientific. Notice how the last few typological anthropology works coincide with the de-racism of the United States; during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Do you agree with the idea that the human species is monotypic and most variation is individual? I think it is quite clear morphological characteristics can and have been attributed to human beings in groups. They're not as accurate descriptors of ancestry and similarity as molecular studies(i.e genetics) , but certainly they have their uses beside that, as they do in large taxonomies.

As I have said there is no reason for two persons from the same country classified totally differently to have different genetic makeup. There is also no reason for family members not to have different classifications. Some have and some do not. The reason why so narrow typology of people is bullshit. One brother can have Alpine metric head and one can have Nordid metric type head. Its useless simply because of that arguments among others.
What de-racism are you talking about? Have all molecular anthropologists agreed to brainwash people? There are many references which can be find on the Internet, talks, seminars, brainstorming among these scientists which dispute these kind of typologies. So I do give a fuck if Coon guessed neanderthal admixure or not.
You can find emails of thousands molecular geneticists working at Universities. Send them an email and ask them for professional opinion and see what they will tell. They after all have 8 years of college dealing with genetics, chemistry, physics, evolution and not this http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/gloss1.htm

[Panopticon]

Physical anthropology is quite interesting in terms of how it can be linked to evolutionary theory. All (sub-)races or (sub-)types are basically environmental adaptations and part of evolution.

I really do wonder why it shouldn't be considered as valid though. There are noticeable morphological differences between Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid population and further noticeable, yet more subtle as the grouping narrows, morphological differences inside those three groups.

It has little real value in terms of finding information on ancestry. Though I don't think that ever has been the most important application of it. Ancestral DNA is just junk DNA and the genes that control appearance aren't; the two have little relation.

[Insuperable]

Physical anthropology is quite interesting in terms of how it can be linked to evolutionary theory. All (sub-)races or (sub-)types are basically environmental adaptations and part of evolution.

I really do wonder why it shouldn't be considered as valid though. There are noticeable morphological differences between Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid population and further noticeable, yet more subtle as the grouping narrows, morphological differences inside those three groups.

It has little real value in terms of finding information on ancestry. Though I don't think that ever has been the most important application of it.

Take your pick. Is it an adaptation or there are subraces?

[Panopticon]

Take your pick. Is it an adaptation or there are subraces?

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Stefan]

Totally useless
Why drive this ( typology )

Since according to many both lead to the same goal why do not you all start wasting your time on modern stuff and not on fossile or is it much easier to look at people?

Because evidence is more substantial when it comes from different sources. The results aren't the same anyway.


While the biological species concept emphasizes the separateness of species from one another due to reproductive barriers, several other definitions emphasize the unity within a species. For example, the morphological species concept characterizes a species by its body shape, size, and other structural features. The morphological species concept has advantages: It can be applied to asexual and sexual organisms, and it can be useful even without information on the extent of gene flow. In practice, this is how scientists distinguish most species. One disadvantage, however, is that this definition relies on subjective criteria; researchers may disagree on which structural features distinguish a species.

Genetics is great, and it's developing very fast, but it can't be applied in all cases, at least not yet.



As I have said there is no reason for two persons from the same country classified totally differently to have different genetic makeup. There is also no reason for family members not to have different classifications. Some have and some do not. The reason why so narrow typology of people is bullshit. One brother can have Alpine metric head and one can have Nordid metric type head. Its useless simply because of that arguments among others.

Again, nobody argued that. Read Coon's work, he is determining the different contributions that make up modern Europeans. Europeans aren't the same as they were in the mesolithic, for example, and that is something substantiated by genetics. Obviously there were different populations that contributed to the greater European population for which we see today. Obviously they must have had different physical characteristics. It is more of a search for the origins of Europeans than distinguishing among them at the individual level. Modern Europeans are mixtures of older groups. I think this is quite obvious, whether we are talking about typology based on morphology or genetics.



What de-racism are you talking about? Have all molecular anthropologists agreed to brainwash people? There are many references which can be find on the Internet, talks, seminars, brainstorming among these scientists which dispute these kind of typologies. So I do give a fuck if Coon guessed neanderthal admixure or not.

You don't believe there is heavy indoctrination in U.S universities? Starting in the 1960s there was a political movement that tried to equate all races as the same, other than skin color. Whether the scientists intentionally decided against pursuing racial categorizations or not isn't important. It's quite clear that people who work on such studies are labeled as racist, and they are the minority anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon


Coon published The Origin of Races in 1962. In its "Introduction" he described the book as part of the outcome of his project he conceived (in light of his work on The Races of Europe) around the end of 1956, for a work to be titled along the lines of Races of the World. He said that since 1959 he had proceeded with the intention to follow The Origin of Races with a sequel, so the two would jointly fulfill the goals of the original project.[6] (He indeed published The Living Races of Man in 1965.) The book asserted that the human species divided into five races before it had evolved into Homo sapiens. Further, he suggested that the races evolved into Homo sapiens at different times. It was not well received.[7] The field of anthropology was moving rapidly from theories of race typology, and The Origin of Races was widely castigated by his peers in anthropology as supporting racist ideas with outmoded theory and notions which had long since been repudiated by modern science. One of his harshest critics, Theodore Dobzhansky, scorned it as providing "grist for racist mills"



You can find emails of thousands molecular geneticists working at Universities. Send them an email and ask them for professional opinion and see what they will tell. They after all have 8 years of college dealing with genetics, chemistry, physics, evolution and not this http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/gloss1.htm

Their professional opinion on what? Whether or not the human species is polytipic or monotypic? Not all would agree on that matter.

[Pallantides]

As I have said there is no reason for two persons from the same country classified totally differently to have different genetic makeup.

Different phenotypes like Nordid, Borreby or Baltids can also be found among siblings and they will obviously be genetically very similar to each other.


Personally I don't believe there have ever at anytime been something like a population with just one specific phenotype.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I find this to be a paradox with what I've observed in the real world. The smartest people in my high school were short. The valedictorian was only a girl of 4ft 10 in. The salutatorian was only a girl of 5 feet. I had the third highest S.A.T scores in my school, and my height is only 5ft 6in. The highest S.A.T scores go to males of 5ft 8in - 5ft 10in. From what I've read it is pretty much widely accepted that intelligence is mostly a ratio of brain mass vs. body mass. This is because of the enormous energy requirements of the brain. Other factors include how particular neural pathways are structured, and the efficiency of particular brain tissues. It's possibly there is a correlation between intelligence and height, caused by some linked genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_linkage), however I doubt there is a high enough correlation to consider such a phenomenon as a rule rather than a matter of variation.

It sounds like you had some Asian girls in your graduating class. Are you sure that you're not Asian too?;) Like you, I always thought that the relationship between body mass and brain mass was one of the determining factors in intelligence. The blogger might not take this into account. He doesn't seem to realize that the ordinary man of 5'6 has a greater body mass and brain mass than the ordinary woman of 5'6. He seems to think that height is synonymous with size. That's not to mention gender differences in brain structure.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Iq test- 180
Height- 6'2-6'3

Yowza! You should play basketball for MIT.:rolleyes:

[Bobcat Fraser]

Is height really associated with IQ? ive seen some articles about it but i dont think it was ever confirmed as more than a theory.

There are a few studies that claim that it is. I'd like to discuss the role gender plays too.

[Stefan]

It sounds like you had some Asian girls in your graduating class. Are you sure that you're not Asian too?;) Like you, I always thought that the relationship between body mass and brain mass was one of the determining factors in intelligence. The blogger might not take this into account. He doesn't seem to realize that the ordinary man of 5'6 has a greater body mass and brain mass than the ordinary woman of 5'6. He seems to think that height is synonymous with size. That's not to mention gender differences in brain structure.

They weren't Asian. They were Pole-Americans; blonde too! There aren't many Asians around here. There are some Filipino girls who immigrated here, but other than that everybody is white. The top ten students of the class were European-Americans, with some Jewish admixture in a few.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I thought the oppossite.
Smaller people i thought would be smarter and healthier on everage.
Isnt that why they portray alliens very small and far more intelligent in movies!?

You can't go by just the gray ETs. The reptoids are very tall, as are the blonde ETs.:D

[Insuperable]

Again, nobody argued that. Read Coon's work, he is determining the different contributions that make up modern Europeans. Europeans aren't the same as they were in the mesolithic, for example, and that is something substantiated by genetics. Obviously there were different populations that contributed to the greater European population for which we see today. Obviously they must have had different physical characteristics. It is more of a search for the origins of Europeans than distinguishing among them at the individual level. Modern Europeans are mixtures of older groups. I think this is quite obvious, whether we are talking about typology based on morphology or genetics.


You don't believe there is heavy indoctrination in U.S universities? Starting in the 1960s there was a political movement that tried to equate all races as the same, other than skin color. Whether the scientists intentionally decided against pursuing racial categorizations or not isn't important. It's quite clear that people who work on such studies are labeled as racist, and they are the minority anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon

It had its guesses Ill give you that, nobody is disputing that but OPA is useless today and a top of that its typologies are disputed not because of not pursuing racial categorizations god damn it. Remember what did I say, references, seminars, talks...


Their professional opinion on what? Whether or not the human species is polytipic or monotypic? Not all would agree on that matter.
Not all would agree for sure but they will disagree with Baltids, Nordids, Dinarids, Alpines and similiar crap

[Drawing-slim]

So how do we explain east asians wich have the highest IQ in the world?!
I dont think chinese people are known as giants in height!?

[Stefan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Franz_Ignaz_Pruner


Current researchers investigating racial differences and arguing that they are biological are often accused of racism and that their research may harm society. Steven Pinker has stated that it is "a conventional wisdom among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide." He has responded to this "conventional wisdom" by comparing the history of Marxism, which had the opposite position on genes to that of Nazism:
But the 20th century suffered "two" ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.[74]



Not all would agree for sure but they will disagree with Baltids, Nordids, Dinarids, Alpines and similiar crap

Because they're outdated concepts; that was my point. A modern racial typology would focus on connecting genotypes, which are based on mutations, with biochemistry found in different populations. Certain genes would be attributed to certain populations, both ancestral and modern. In a few decades, one can probably take a genome and create a model of the person who provided the DNA.

It doesn't make morphological categorizations or many of the processes and adaptations described by Coon and other old Anthropologists incorrect though. The concept of race, to describe these phenotypes, is probably the only wrong thing about it, and after reading the works you understand that the anthropologists didn't view such groups as races anymore, due to the gene-flow and mixtures among them. Ancestrally; however, certain populations contributed a morphological type to Europe, that didn't exist there before. It would be these groups that would be called sub-races or races.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Satoshi Kanazawa doesn't take that in account, if his ideas were true, then women would have surpassed men in IQ and in height, and that's not happening, men are still 10-14 cm taller than women on average.

I'm not so sure if it's correct though. Men are vastly outnumbering women in sciences, business, politics, music and arts, etc., and always have done so, and their contributions in those areas are also often much larger on the individual level. This is also despite the push of society for women to succeed (along with the lack of that for men) and the gender quotas and other legislations that gives women benefits. However, the IQ of women is much more stable, the IQ of men is much less stable. The IQ of men deviates more and there are therefore more male retards and more male geniuses, while there are less female retards and less female geniuses.

I agree with your two last comments. Most studies show that males are more represented in the challenged category *and* the gifted category. Did you read the first article? It claims that the ordinary woman now has a higher IQ than the ordinary man. Flynn said that multitasking may have helped to increase the women's scores. He brought up the point that they might be achieving their genetic cognitive potential too. One also wonders if there are more gifted females and challenged females than we know. Past studies concentrated more on males than on females.

[Bobcat Fraser]

IQ - 112(officially tested and evaluated)
Height - 1.82m
Gender - Male

I should have titled the thread, "Are Women Really Smarter?". I didn't mean for this to turn into a poll on members' traits.:)

[Bobcat Fraser]

Who was it who theorized that short people are more intelligent because their blood "circulates faster"? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

I have no idea. My guess is Daffy Duck.

[Insuperable]

I have met smart midgets and smart giants.
Its shown that positive, confident... thinking can influence someones mind.
I think that smaller people do not have quite the same amount of confidence as taller people do and that influences their mind. An example of social reason.

I do not think that taller people are genetically determined to be more intelligent.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I have to ask two redicoulous questions
When you were 18 or 16 and wanted to get driving license is it in your country obliged to take an IQ test? ( when I had to get medical papers )
If so can that be counted as taking an offcial IQ test in a controlled environment?
They put me in a room. Had 20 minutes, 40 questions. Of course all of them were "spatial" orientated

We never had to do that. We just took a driving test and a parking test. We had to take a written test on traffic rules before we could obtain a permit, which allowed us to drive if licensed drivers accompanied us. If we had to take IQ tests, our local streets would be empty.:D

[Insuperable]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Franz_Ignaz_Pruner

I have also posted many times links to Lewontins fallacy.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE NO RACES.


Because they're outdated concepts; that was my point. A modern racial typology would focus on connecting genotypes, which are based on mutations, with biochemistry found in different populations. Certain genes would be attributed to certain populations, both ancestral and modern. In a few decades, one can probably take a genome and create a model of the person who provided the DNA.

It doesn't make morphological categorizations or many of the processes and adaptations described by Coon and other old Anthropologists incorrect though. The concept of race, to describe these phenotypes, is probably the only wrong thing about it, and after reading the works you understand that the anthropologists didn't view such groups as races anymore, due to the gene-flow and mixtures among them. Ancestrally; however, certain populations contributed a morphological type to Europe, that didn't exist there before. It would be these groups that would be called sub-races or races.

They are outdated because there was not correlation with genetics because of reasons I said in this thread and because countless others scientific reasons and not to mention that as Palla said siblings themselves can belong to different "subraces"

[Bobcat Fraser]

Either some people here are taking untrustworthy internet IQ tests or they are lying about their results, I mean is there anyone who don't have a mensa level IQ here... expect for me?

I mean with my 112 IQ I'm way below average on the Apricity IQ standard:P

I feel like a jerk now. I took one *real* IQ test. I scored a 140 on it. My dad and sisters scored higher, so it didn't matter. It might as well have been 80. Based on some of the incredibly stupid things I've done and said, it sometimes seems like that's closer to the truth.:rolleyes: I might as well add my statistics to the mix.

Height: 5'9
IQ: 140
Gender: panther

[Stefan]

They are outdated because there was not correlation with genetics because of reasons I said in this thread and because countless others scientific reasons and not to mention that as Palla said siblings themselves can belong to different "subraces"

Again, you're arguing against the straw man. These anthropologists did not believe these sub-races were modern groupings. They understood that it was mostly statistical and clinal. Of course siblings can be born of two different "sub-races." The allelic contributions have such significant variation because different peoples migrated to Europe at different times, each having different phenotypes prevalent or even specific to that group. Furthermore, after those people migrated certain environmental conditions enabled selective processes within European populations. That is why Coon, for example, used the term "White Race." He viewed the "White Race" as we would classically perceive a race, having no or little gene-flow from outside. While the specific phenotypes were tendencies from earlier populations and selective processes internally. For this very reason, one can probably attribute certain phenotypes as peaking in certain regions, much the same certain genetic components peak in certain regions. Such as the Mediterranean component peaking in Sardinia, or the Southwest Asian component peaking in Arabia. Just as those components are clinal, so would these 'sub-races' be clinal and mixed. Now if you look at Mesolithic Europeans, they're far more homogeneous with 90% Atlantic-Baltic, for example. They were most likely very homogeneous in terms of phenotype as well.

[Bobcat Fraser]

about the correlation between gender, height and IQ:

B S

That settles it. Close the thread.:rolleyes:

[Bobcat Fraser]

Just a farming maiden? :D I'd recommend that you do so, to be able to brag about membership in a high IQ society is great for a CV.

Concerning MBTI, aptitude and IQ; http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55120

Forget MENSA. Celtic Viking should join a crime-fighting group of superheroes!:rolleyes:

[Bobcat Fraser]

I'm retarded by Apricity standards with my 100 IQ

Read no further if you don't like "sexist" (but true) comments. Cute girls don't have to be smart.;)

[Bobcat Fraser]

They weren't Asian. They were Pole-Americans; blonde too! There aren't many Asians around here. There are some Filipino girls who immigrated here, but other than that everybody is white. The top ten students of the class were European-Americans, with some Jewish admixture in a few.

The smartest cat I knew was a Swiss American from a working class background. He was like Good Will Hunting. He scored higher than the Asians in his math classes and science classes. We lost contact after I dropped out of law school.

[Bobcat Fraser]

So how do we explain east asians wich have the highest IQ in the world?!
I dont think chinese people are known as giants in height!?

What about SE Asians? They have much lower IQs than Europeans and other Asians. Look at Malaysia, the Philippines, etc.. That dog won't hunt.

[Drawing-slim]

I'm intrigued by Celticviking's high score

I know this albanian girl for years, she is just as tall as CV and blond, she speaks 5 languages fluent, she is a doctor only 28 years old
And over the years i known her on this albanian forum, i have never seen her lose a debate, even when she's clearly wrong she manages to make such good case in her arguments.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I'm intrigued by Celticviking's high score

I know this albanian girl for years, she is just as tall as CV and blond, she speaks 5 languages fluent, she is a doctor only 28 years old
And over the years i known her on this albanian forum, i have never seen her lose a debate, even when she's clearly wrong she manages to make such good case in her arguments.

That reminds me of my house before I went to college. I always was the dumbest in the room until I left home.

[Drawing-slim]

Lol

[PeacefulCaribbeanDutch]

What bothers me is that they never post the raw research, I bet it was just in universities or something.

[Marino]

Who was it who theorized that short people are more intelligent because their blood "circulates faster"? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

It was Schopenhauer who said that it was a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for a "genius" to have a short neck because this would - in his view - help rapid bloodflow to the brain.

http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Schopenhauer,+Arthur/Die+Welt+als+Wille+und+Vorstellung/Zweiter+Band/Erg%C3%A4nzungen+zum+dritten+Buch/31.+Vom+Genie

As a well known fact, Schopenhauer considered himself as a genius. As he was of rather short stature, with a large head (almost a hydrocephalus it seems) and a short neck, he decreed that every genius had to be of short stature and to have a short neck, without these properties a certain individual could not be a genius. Typical case of ressentiment from a short guy.

I really appreciate Schopenhauer, but he was full of wishful thinking and accordingly often just talking bullshit.

[Panopticon]

Actually, the participants in these tests were quite young. Most participants were 15 to 18 years old. Female brains develop earlier than male brains by two to three years, so females would technically have an unfair biological advantage in this case.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Actually, the participants in these tests were quite young. Most participants were 15 to 18 years old.

Do you have a source for that information? The Daily Mail story didn't mention the ages of the participants.

[Panopticon]

Do you have a source for that information? The Daily Mail story didn't mention the ages of the participants.

I don't have the complete numbers and all, but this article about the same study mentions that. http://www.livescience.com/21647-men-women-iq-scores.html

[Bobcat Fraser]

I don't have the complete numbers and all, but this article about the same study mentions that. http://www.livescience.com/21647-men-women-iq-scores.html

That's strange; the first story didn't mention the ages of the participants. It claimed that Flynn looked at American and Canadian IQ scores too. Go figure. It's embarrassing to post information that might be erroneous.

Like you said, the ages of the participants were major factors in the study. Teen girls' brains are more mature than teen boys' brains, and it's wrong to portray the study's results as indicative of the IQ scores of all men and women. I'm assuming that the scores were limited to just teens' when I say that. Like many stories of this kind, it pays to look for the rest of the story.

[Behemot]

I fail to see how height affects inteligence ..To me it seems the opposite .....but it may be the book/movie stereotype about little sneaky person that fools everyone :D

[Bobcat Fraser]

I fail to see how height affects inteligence ..To me it seems the opposite .....but it may be the book/movie stereotype about little sneaky person that fools everyone :D

That's what the blogger claimed (second link). It could be that he wanted to look like he wasn't a sexist. Maybe he went out of his way to find reports and studies that matched his theory, but it would have been nice if he linked to all of the raw data. Frankly, tall people likely tend to have higher IQs.

[Drawing-slim]

I fail to see how height affects inteligence ..To me it seems the opposite .....but it may be the book/movie stereotype about little sneaky person that fools everyone :DThats what i thought myself..
Even in an evolutionary sense i think
If you were smaller size you have to be clever finding ways going through life easy, the further back in time, the more was nessecerly for the little man to step up his game in order to nake it:D

Lol,myself i'm 5'10" and i dont think this is considered small on a world average

[Bobcat Fraser]

Thats what i thought myself..
Even in an evolutionary sense i think
If you were smaller size you have to be clever finding ways going through life easy, the further back in time, the more was nessecerly for the little man to step up his game in order to nake it:D

Lol,myself i'm 5'10" and i dont think this is considered small on a world average

Most studies show that taller people tend to have higher IQs. Keep in mind that a 5'9 guy is posting this.:)

[Stefan]

Most studies show that taller people tend to have higher IQs. Keep in mind that a 5'9 guy is posting this.:)

I think this mostly has to do with environmental factors though, such as nutrition. Good nutrition leads to both higher IQ's and taller people, on average. How much of this is nature vs. nurture? I think that is the important question.

[Bobcat Fraser]

I think this mostly has to do with environmental factors though, such as nutrition. Good nutrition leads to both higher IQ's and taller people, on average. How much of this is nature vs. nurture? I think that is the important question.

I agree with that. However, some scientists have found a link to HGH. They looked at shorter and taller students with almost identical backgrounds, and the latter group tended to be smarter. Of course, that doesn't mean that all tall people are Isaac Newtons.

[Stefan]

I agree with that. However, some scientists have found a link to HGH. They looked at shorter and taller students with almost identical backgrounds, and the latter group tended to be smarter. Of course, that doesn't mean that all tall people are Isaac Newtons.

How significant, statistically, was this difference? Did they consider the racial and ethnic composition of the participants, as well? How similar were their sample sets? Did they record data from the mothers of these children about their activities during the pre-natal development of their children? If the statistics are vastly significant, then the latter questions wouldn't matter much, but if they aren't vastly significant, then I would think it would just be variation among the sample sets, for which they didn't accommodate, especially if the sample sets weren't very large, although 30 individuals is all you need if the samples of the sample set are chosen randomly.

[Bobcat Fraser]

How significant, statistically, was this difference? Did they consider the racial and ethnic composition of the participants, as well? How similar were their sample sets? Did they record data from the mothers of these children about their activities during the pre-natal development of their children? If the statistics are vastly significant, then the latter questions wouldn't matter much, but if they aren't vastly significant, then I would think it would just be variation among the sample sets, for which they didn't accommodate, especially if the sample sets weren't very large, although 30 individuals is all you need if the samples of the sample set are chosen randomly.

It was next to nothing. The researchers accounted for different characteristics. I think that they took ethnicity and race into account, but I wouldn't swear to that. I know that they definitely took income into account. I doubt that there were shocking disparities between the taller students and the shorter students. There was a difference, though. I'll try to find the article. It might be full of answers to your questions.

[Leon_C]

Gender: Male Height: 6'4 IQ ??? I don't know I guess it's 100 or more because I can count past 10

[Linet]

I have heard, from a very reliable doctor http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/Suep.gif, that if you are female :eyes and exactly 163 cm, you are the cleverest, a person of deep wisedom :nerd:

[HispaniaSagrada]

:bored: