[0596] 97 Points
└ posted on Monday, 7 July 2014, by Novil
On Sunday, 6 June 2014, I posted the submissions between place 13 and 25 of the Sandra and Woo and Gaia fanart contest 2014. Go check them out!
- Title: The Human Brain: IQ (3)
- Footnote: Ian J. Deary et al. [2007]
- Biology teacher: This graph shows that the distribution of IQ in men has a larger variance than in women. This means that there are significantly more very intelligent men than women.
- Biology teacher: On the other hand this also means… Oh no, it’s the moral police!
- Dorothy Cambridge: GET HIM!
- Teacher: Tell my wife and children that I love them!
- Male activist: 97 points on the privilege-o-meter!
- Female activist: High time to cull him from the herd!
- Principal: Please welcome your new biology teacher, Mrs. Dorothy Um… Cambridge!
- Dorothy Cambridge: Margaret Cavendish! Laura Bassi! Caroline Herschel! Elizabeth Báthory! Ada Lovelace! Marie Curie! Lise Meitner! Emmy Noether! Dorothy Hodgkin! Rosalind Franklin! Ada Yonath!
- Sandra: This will not end well.
![[0596] 97 Points](/comics/2014-07-07-0596-97-points.png "[0596] 97 Points")
Not sure if already mentioned, but if I remember correctly IQ isn’t a measure of intelligence but rather your ability to learn. A person with higher IQ will simple be wiser when they get older then the one with lower IQ.
@ Aztetos:
1. That’s the definition of intelligence.
2. IQ is a bullshit measurement of absolutely nothing, and is so horribly inaccurate that there’s no point even thinking about it.
@ wobster109:
Again, non sequitur. You have another list here of perfectly valid complaints, but they are not accurate in being directed at this comic.
You are generalizing this one militant feminist into an example of all women. In your defensiveness.
This is clearly not meant to represent all women.
That woman, and the sort of man-hating female-superiority she stands for, absolutely deserves to get insulted. I don’t think the same applies to Feminism, though, and certainly not to all women. It is you and not the author who makes this mistake, conflating the sane with the absurd.
wobster109 wrote:
It would be. As would it be if I, or this comic said something of the same nature to women. Or even to feminists as a whole. However, if you choose to read that into it, you have only yourself to blame. This is clearly a satire, and clearly aimed at a subset of the population far less rational than the norm.
Would you find someone who mocked the Westboro Baptist Church offensive to all Christians?
@ LaughGirl:
Awesome. You hit all the nails on all the heads, and I am so glad to see that it makes sense to other people as well.
Thank you so much for posting! ^o^
Potshots at tumblr? That makes my oppression rod rock hard.
Tom West wrote:
I was just reading Avian Mosquito’s reply, and noticed this line (which I’d missed the first time around).
What you have said is actually not true at all. It’s well-established that male-victim domestic violence is heavily under-reported for several reasons, notably the social stigma against the victims (prompting them to “just suck it up”) and deep sexist bias in law enforcement behavior (such as arresting the man in any domestic violence situation, regardless of who the evidence suggests is the victim).
This site compiled some rather telling statistics on male-victim domestic violence for one of its articles (and before you ask, no, it is not an MRA site; this appears to be the only article they have touching on male-victim violence):
http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/men-the-overlooked-victims-of-domestic-violence/
Aztetos wrote:
There’s not actually any real agreement on what it is that IQ measures. The only thing that’s really agreed upon is that people with high IQ scores tend to be smarter than people with low IQ scores.
Well, that and the rather obvious conclusion that IQ measures how well someone can complete an IQ test.
Jeremy K. wrote:
On that note, I’d like to add (as someone in the healthcare industry) that a patient’s race is taken into consideration in a lot of healthcare decisions. There’s nothing sinister or racist about it… it’s just that certain racial and ethnic groups are more prone to certain health conditions (for example, African Americans having a much higher rate of heart failure than Caucasians of the same age and lifestyle). Being overly politically correct about this sort of issue would result in worse patient outcomes, either from under-treating at-risk patients, or from over-treating patients that are not at risk.
The new biology teacher is listing the names of famous and infamous women like Elizabeth Bathory the “Blood Countess”.
While highly intelligent women were seldom given the chance to contribute to the intellectual progress of mankind, in the Western world at least, it kinda makes sense to make note of their contributions and encourage their contemporaries to do the same.
But to reinterpret history in a Marxist context of struggle by women under patriarchal oppression, just like class struggle (capitalism) and other distortions and exaggerations of history for political propaganda purposes is Women’s Studies in a nutshell.
At least they are addressing the mass fascism outbreak in the south…
On the other hand, they got a new strain of totalitarian fever… the properties of it in itself is not known…
The United Nations is not yet looking into this issue…
Preadatordetector wrote:
So I don’t get any comments. Geez, my jokes never get a single laugh…
Ah well… time to photoshop popular girls at my school into doing the Hitler salute, print several copies, and put them in the urinals at the boy’s washrooms…
@ Helen:
Well, what is meant here by “significant” is in the statistical sense. It doesn’t mean large, it means that the difference you measure is actually not a statistical artifact due to sample size, etc.
By the way, the same argument, if it’s real, also shows that there are significantly more stupid men than women. It just shows higher variation, so to speak.
(I don’t know if the curve is real, actually the first question would be about the bias of IQ as an estimator of “Intelligence”).
He kinda had it coming, because it also means that there are significantly more very stupid men than women.
…What the hell just happened? The Sandra & Woo universe has some kind of… hyper-feminist Stasi? I’m sure that the injustice displayed here will be rectified by the end of the arc, but pretty much any resolution other than a dream sequence makes their world a much more bizarre place than we previously realised…
Also, the word “significant” is indeed appropriate. A small difference in variance will have a larger effect at the extremes. Look at the graph on the screen: as you move away from the mean, proportion of men/women increases greatly, to 200% around 140 and 60, to over 300% at 150 and 50. A 200-300% proportion is highly significant.
*sigh*
Ok, so I appreciate that you apparently find straw feminists funny (or you wouldn’t be writing a week of this), but as a long time reader, I’m going to politely ask that you watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnJxqRLg9x0
@ SmartAlec105:
Yeah. Dolores Umbridge.
Massive b*tch that bans fun at hogwarts.
Between this and him taking away Larisa’s insulin shots, this is even more proof that the principal is a blithering idiot that should not be allowed ANYWHERE near children.
It’s CLEAR that Dorothy is deranged and psycho, WHY would you hire her, much less allow her to EXECUTE one of your staff members in front of children?
885ertd wrote:
The graph betrays a difference of 10-15% or even more in the number of subjects measured at any given IQ.
Human DNA differs from a chimp’s by 2-4%, “significant” enough to prevent breeding between species.
So what is a “significant” percentage?
The mathematician’s analysis was plausible. If the misandrists hadn’t interrupted him, he would have noted that, “on the other hand, this also means that there are significantly more stupid men than women.”
@ Luke: I agree.
I think that the initial thought processes behind feminism were more about just being given equal treatment. Woman had no voices at all back then and feminism was created to give them a voice, not in order to squash the voices of men. However, now that woman have a much stronger voice, feminism has become something different. It has gone from equality to superiority, which defeats the original purpose. Hence why I don’t refer to myself as feminist because while I long for equality, I don’t feel that woman are better than men.
I call myself Equalist (though I am not sure if that is the right word) because I feel that everyone, all genders, races, etc. deserve to have the same opportunities to rise to the challenge and the same education so that they can make the best use of their skills. Yeah, there will be more men than woman in some careers and more woman than men in others, but it will be based on merit and actual skill, NOT based on what genitals they had when they were born or if they were rich enough to be given opportunity. Same with race. We wouldn’t need things like affirmative action if everyone was able to reach their highest potential and companies hired based on who was best for the job, rather than biased beliefs or a forced quota. Like you said, thought, in an Ideal World maybe…
I heard the same thing as Scrutinizer about IQ distribution… but I have to wonder if IQ testing as we currently have it isn’t a bit skewed toward “traditional masculine” thinking and processing – numbers, spatial awareness etc – so your average male has had a little more practice at what the testing is looking at. Personal anecdote time – the last time I had a test at 18 the little bar graphs came off the page in all categories, and maths and physics are by far my worst areas of intellect; I do way better at “traditionally feminine” subjects like language. No test I’ve ever had has really leaned toward things I think my brain is better at – like speed-reading, vocabulary, comprehension, similarities between languages in different families, and the Vetinari trick – spotting typos while skimming pages, even if the text is reversed 🙂 I also know far more multilingual women than men – even in countries with more than one official language, the women have about one extra each. Then again, I’m so introverted my acquaintances aren’t a sample… I digressed. *halts*
Yes. They’re called ‘feminists’…@ Luke:
Oh God, It’s the White Guy Defense Force!
Even if he is right, which as a psychology undergrad I seriously doubt… he must have the IQ of a goblin. 😛
@ Irizara:
It’s a little late, but here’s a meta-analysis:
http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/psicologia/pei/download/Lynn2004.pdf
Oh… did it show something you didn’t want to be true? My bad.
…Why did she mention the ‘Blood Countess’ Elizabeth Bathory in there? I wouldn’t think hard-core feminists would be proud of a women who horribly mutilated and killed young girls. Though maybe this woman thinks her conviction was false or something. Mind you, even if she wasn’t directly involved (unlikely), there’s no way she wouldn’t have know that the torture and killing was happening, especially given that some of the girls killed were noble’s daughters sent to her to learn etiquette. So yeah, she was either involved or turned a blind-eye to it, either of which is enough for her not to be among my list of ‘good examples’ of anything.
CocoNokia
This comment section is a textbook example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy.
– Group (feminism) uses unsavory, dishonest tactics against another group (white males and anyone accused of aiding and abetting them in their “quest to oppress women”). This is the bailey, the fertile field.
– That group gets called out for it (the heathens are attacking the bailey! This comic is attacking common feminist tactics!)
– The group retreats to its castle – its motte – the defensible position of “we only want equality! Why do you hate equality?!”
On the other hand, this also means that there are significantly more males with profound intellectual disabilities.