Hacker News Reader

Comment by hef19898 | Hacker News Reader

hef19898

One reason certainly is that the physical differences betwen individuals regardless of sex are bigger than those between sexes.

Also, the measurable physical differences in the brain structure of women and men are there but totally insignificant with regards to intelligence.

Side note, there is no way measuring intelligence based on a MRT-scan of ones brain.

Also, history might help, humanity had some bad experience with People judging stuff like intelligence based on visible physical differences. I suggest to leave These questions to actual neuro-scientists and not People who tried to apply mathematics to a question they didn't really understand in the first place.

View on HN

I thought that scientists had just devised a way to determine fluid intelligence at least from an fMRI scan?

https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-scan-intelligence-9477/

It's not especially accurate but it does work.

If your error margin is still bigger the scale of what you want to measure...

But I wasn't aaware of that development, so thanks for pointing it out!

Plenty of instruments extract useful signals from below the noise floor. (See deep space communication with Voyager.) The idea that you can't do anything of "your error margin is...bigger than the scale of what you want to measure" is mathematical nonsense.

Agreed. But that is relevant to measuring the IQ using MRT-Scans how?

If the differences between sexes are less impactful than differences between individuals, why is virtually every olympic sport segregated by gender, with significant deltas in performance at every part of the performance distribution? Why are purely intellectual competitions like chess also segregated by gender due to a performance disparity?

As stated in a different post, there are differences. Of course there are. My Point is that in a world in which Technology and the capability of using said Technology is getting the deciding factor the physical differences between sexes are getting less relevant.

Also, if you take boxing athletes are put into different weight classes. Making it rather futile to tell if Floyd Mayweather or Anthony Jushua is the better boxer, right?

Also, out of experience, These differences are much less pronounced if do not only look at Olympia-Level individuals. But I digress.

That is not what you wrote in the gp post. You specifically referred to physical differences and now you're back-pedalling because that argument crumbled. Stop and read what you're writing. All you have to offer are personal anecdotes and personally biased speculation which is contrary to trivial evidence. A rational person would re-evaluate their beliefs at this point.

'There is not a gender skill gap when it comes to using technology' is a very different argument to 'certainly is that the physical differences betwen individuals regardless of sex are bigger than those between sexes'

Ok, sorry that I didn't provide a detailed Definition of what I have been talking about. And no, I'm not back pdealling. Physical differences, as I understood them in my original post, are measurable differences in e.g. brain density and weight, volume and such.

Also, I stand by by the argument that the difference betwen individuals is bigger than between sexes. Taking the extreme edge cases will of course show a certain tendency, right? But I did not considere Sports or stuff like that when I first posted.

So, instead of declaring my Argument having crumbled, why didn't you just ask which diferences I referred to?

And by the way, always bringing up the same Arguments (Sports for pure physics and chess for "IQ") whithout further Analysis of how the coresponding data is measured and what could have caused the differenmces doesn't help any discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com