Gender & intelligence

[Jadefeather7]

I’ve been having a discussion with someone who thinks that there are differences in male & female brains (I think they believe women are less intelligent although they haven’t yet said this). It seems that studies on this subject are inconclusive. Has anyone got any insight on this topic they could share? Thanks!

Gina Rippon

Thank you so much! I will look into her.

Very generally, there are differences in some distributions but these can't be used as deterministic predictors for a given individual. More simply, you can't use averages to make specific statements about someone with no measurement.

In terms of raw intelligence, different studies produce different distributions because there is no objective measure of intelligence but, very broadly, men do show a greater variability than women in studies that demonstrate a difference. In other words, it's possible that there are more male geniuses but, if there are, there are also more male idiots and it's hard to say what exactly constitutes a 'genius' or an 'idiot'. The term to search for is 'male greater variability' but this will likely produce studies biased towards confirming this hypothesis.

Prof. Sophie Scott put up a video recently.
Getting brain sex wrong.
vimeo.com/414833798/description

From what I can remember of her presentation - there are small differences on average. If you use a small group in a study, then it can seem like there are large differences; however, when you expand the research group, then these differences go away.
Brain differences are much more significant between age groups, rather than sex. Yet people tend to focus on sex differences.

From my own personal view, as I'm not well read on this topic, the idea that women in general would be less intelligent than men makes no sense at all. From an evolutionary perspective, the best chance of survival for offspring depends on the parents being as 'fit' as possible. This includes not just genes, but intelligence. Males and females that are physically fit and intelligent will pass on those traits and advantages, either directly or because their skills maximise strategies for survival. The human species would not have expanded as widely as it has if one half was less 'fit' than the other. We are an incredibly versatile and intelligent species that can survive in most environments.
Although it's a politically incorrect and contentious area, there seems to be some evidence of heritability of intelligence / IQ as I understand it. Of course, like anything else, the environment plays a big role too. But it makes more sense from an evolutionary perspective for both parents to have as much capacity for intelligence as possible in order to maximise the chances that their offspring will inherit those traits too. I can't see how humans would have gotten this far if it wasn't the case.

From an evolutionary perspective, the best chance of survival for offspring depends on the parents being as 'fit' as possible. This includes not just genes, but intelligence. Males and females that are physically fit and intelligent will pass on those traits and advantages, either directly or because their skills maximise strategies for survival.

An interesting thing about evolution is that it lacks foresight: it can only determine what 'works' well in the circumstances presented to the organism. Intelligence, physical strength and other factors aren't universally beneficial but more of a trade off. For example, novelty seeking behaviour may be beneficial in terms of exploring novel food sources/acquisition but can also be detrimental if it results in risky behaviours. Equally, physical strength is a benefit in confrontations but comes at the cost of requiring more nutrients to maintain it.

You're right, Gronky. There are trade-offs between different traits. An increase in one type can cause a decrease in another.
Would there not be a baseline though? Intelligence can vary among individuals, but on a population level, you need roughly similar levels of capacity for intelligence or traits linked to intelligence between males and females to ensure future offspring either maintain the baseline or increase it further over time. Am I making sense?

Well first, you have to define intelligence, then you have to compare males and females of the same personality, character profile. Then you have to focus on a particular area to compare against.

I agree that often males and females tend to process knowledge differently and I have found this to be the case in research I've carried out. But I have not seen any evidence to support the blanket statement that men are more intelligent than women. I'd rather have a more specific conclusion, eg when comparing males and females with equivalent personality and character profiles, in their performance with IQ tests..... or whatever area.

The answer as far as it goes is there isn't much consensus on this. Though I've never se or heard anything that suggests that women are less intelligent - the closest maybe being the variability stuff Gronky mentioned.

There do seem to be some developmental differences between male and female populations in children that relate to their cognitive abilities.

I generally think this is not a subject to hang one's views of equality on. It could very easily go either way, it's quite possible there are differences. I'd hate to think that would make a difference to anyone's egalitarianism or anything lie that.

Thanks everyone from the replies.

@Goosefoot It’s actually in the context of a discussion about traditional gender roles and although we haven’t quite got there yet I think they will argue for them based on differences in intelligence

I don’t see why it’s a bad thing to admit there can be some differences? Why do we have to force everyone to be the same instead of celebrating our differences? It’s well established that pregnancy changes a woman’s brain, resulting in improved social cognition and reduced grey matter. After a woman has given birth her hormone levels during her monthly cycle may remain lower for the rest of her life. She may also exhibit foetal microchimerism - mums who’ve had boys may have Y chromosomes in their bodies or even their brains, sometimes for the rest of their lives.

NonnyMouse1337 You are making sense to me. It's difficult to say how much of the similarities in intelligence between men and women is down to evolutionary advantages and how much is down to the limitations in sexual dimorphism that can be achieved with one sex chromosome. It may not be known which genes are responsible for intelligence but it is incredibly unlikely there is one gene responsible for intelligence. While there is a majority genetic component to IQ (even if we don't know all the genes, you can study families and twins), there is also variability.

The point about brains is they don't develop in a vacuum: they develop in a social context. So it's impossible to say for sure that there are - or there aren't - innate differences in male and female brains.

@RoyalCorgi I'm sure that's right.

But is the question about "innate" differences, or just differences? I don't think innate has much meaning here because no brain is. If pregnancy for example affects a woman's brain, or sex hormones affect the brain, those things are functions of men's and women's brains in that they belong to men or women, whether they are innate, or structural, or not.

Just as an example, in the discussion of women and Alzheimer's, part of the question is how female hormone changes make a difference. Isn't that a question about the nature of the female brain?

You can't talk about a brain without hormones, it doesn't exist.

I feel like there is a gap between the sort of thing we see about how important it is to study effects of drugs on the brain differentiated by sex, or hormones, etc, and look at the sexes separately, with the constant insistence that there are no innate differences and we can't know what they are. An innate brain is some sort of abstraction. There are only real brains in people with bodies.

Goosefoot is correct to say that the science isn't settled, but I think it's also reasonable to say that there probably aren't large differences in intelligence and other cognitive abilities between men and women, because otherwise they would have been demonstrated clearly by now and the science would be settled.

That’s a good point NotDavidTennant.

I think this person could also argue that women are more emotional and therefore less capable of making decisions...

I think this person could also argue that women are more emotional and therefore less capable of making decisions...

Men seem to feel free to exhibit anger more frequently than woman - an emotion which tends not to lend itself to rational decision making.

@Jadefeather7

That’s a good point NotDavidTennant.

I think this person could also argue that women are more emotional and therefore less capable of making decisions...

And men are more likely to have their thinking influenced by aggressive impulses, by inability to 'lose face' before other men, by exaggerated over-confidence in their own knowledge/competence, by jockeying for status, by inability to control their sexual drives, and in the worst cases, by a higher prevalence of sociopathic traits.

Also, while there is some degree of difference in psychological traits on average between the sexes, viewed as population groups, the bell curves of these traits have a huge degree of overlap. So many individual women will be more toward the 'masculine' edge of the bell curve, and many individual men will be more toward the "feminine" edge. So it's nonsense to assess an individual's characteristics on the basis of population characteristics. Something he ought to know if he is so good at decision-making and judgment.

Emotional intelligence is essential to seeing and understanding the bigger picture - which contributes to better decision making.

Good point, Sister. Lack of emotional intelligence leads to wrong predictions about how people will behave, and thus ineffective or even damaging decisions.

Great counterpoints thank you!

If we were to take things one step further and imagine that in the future there was some established science of this and we found some trait or difference that is more prevalent ‘on average’ in women which suggested that women would be better suited to a submissive role in personal relationships, how would you argue against that? I know our support for equality shouldn’t be based intelligence but I’m struggling with articulating why. How do you argue against someone who stereotypes and thinks rules can be formulated on generalisations that are backed up by data and that we don’t have to take exceptions into account? I hope this makes sense.

I know our support for equality shouldn’t be based intelligence but I’m struggling with articulating why.

I would say that it doesn't mesh with the principle of self determination. Even if there were statistics showing that every single woman were less intelligent than every single man, I would still argue that I am no more obliged to serve men because of it than he would be obliged to serve another man of superior intellect to himself. There's also no requirement in a free society to do the job you're best suited to.

Before you make that point, I would advise asking him if he ever did a job he hated enough to quit. Then ask whether he'd be happy with being forced to do that job for the good of society, against his will. If he denies ever having had a job of that nature, I'd recommend picking one based upon what you know about his aversions.