IQ studies, faulty research and MSM bias

In 2012, there was a short media furor surrounding the scientifically dubious pronouncement that women had, for the first time, ‘overtaken men on IQ tests’. Not only did this claim defy mainstream orthodoxy in the literature, it actually significantly misrepresented the results of the study that it purported to reference. The study in question was one by the controversial psychometrician Jim Flynn, who stated that rather than women having surpassed men on ‘IQ tests,’ they roughly matched them on a single test known as ‘Raven’s Progressive Matrices.’ Something else that the (largely US) media neglected to mention was that the tests were taken in four countries other than the US or Canada. Specifically, they were conducted in Australia, New Zealand, White South Africa, Estonia, and Argentina1 2. This study was actually something of an outlier among the contemporary psychometric pattern of results: in the words of Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics3, an esteemed iconoclast,
Studies with large representative national samples from Spain, Denmark, and the United States, as well as meta-analyses of a large number of published studies throughout the world, all conclude that men on average are slightly but significantly more intelligent than women, by about 3–5 IQ points. So this has now become the new (albeit tentative) consensus in intelligence research.

Indeed, recent studies routinely support this conclusion, which was brought to light by Professor Richard Lynn of Ulster University. He has stated that he was compelled to investigate the matter once discovering research proving that males have a larger brain-to-body ratio4. It was already firmly established that this ratio correlates highly with intelligence, so Lynn was left with a dilemma to solve. After poring over the relevant literature for some months, he came to the conclusion that males don’t score any higher on intelligence tests until roughly the age of 16, at which point they gain an advantage of 4 points or so. The vast majority of studies have since confirmed this or have even shown a male advantage in not just adulthood, but also childhood and early adolescence. Lynn laid out his original findings in a 1994 study5. After that, he encountered this same result multiple times, in many different countries6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Since Lynn’s finding, many other researchers have bolstered his evidence with subsequent papers17 18 19 20 21 22. Indeed, more again have been produced since 2010, reflecting studies from a variety of countries23 24 25 26 27. What more does one need to say after having been presented with 23 recent, high-quality research papers? Funnily enough, none of these have had much media coverage, unlike those mentioned above, grossly misrepresented Flynn study. Go figure.

The jury is still out on the question of why males consistently score higher on intelligence tests. Explanations tend to delve into inferences from evolutionary psychology, such as the proposition from Professor Lynn himself that the higher male ability derives from adaptations to the more historically demanding role of hunting and ensuring the safety of a tribe28. Other suggestions have been made by academics such as Dr. Kanazawa, who actually lays out several potential reasons in a single research thesis29. His ideas are related to the consistent psychometric finding that taller individuals are more intelligent than those less tall; of course, this would have collective ramifications upon men and women. His given causes for the intelligence disparity are as follows:

(1) assortative mating of intelligent men and beautiful women, (2) assortative mating of tall men and beautiful women, (3) an extrinsic correlation between height and intelligence produced by Mechanisms 1 and 2, and (4) a higher-than-expected offspring sex ratio (more sons) among tall (and hence intelligent) parents.

So far, no consensus on why the higher male intelligence exists has been reached in the cognitive literature.

Regardless of the reasons for the sexual disparity, the fact remains that it definitely exists and has remained under the radar of the public eye, due to it having been determinedly neglected by the popular press. A common perception among the layman has been that IQ tests demonstrate a rough equality between the sexes, whereas in reality males have shown a superiority on swathes of tests for decades (as shown above). Sure, very occasionally a study will suggest a contrary result, typically found via poor samplings, such as those containing males below 16; for example, the Flynn as mentioned earlier study (lapped up by the media) utilized a selection of males aged 14-18. As Professor Richard Lynn and others have consistently demonstrated, however, a male advantage definitely emerges from the point of 16 by the latest and has persisted regardless of the efforts of idealogue researchers and journalists to obfuscate the issue.  Furthermore, even large organizations involved with psychometrics admit that many IQ tests have been structured in such a way that there will be minimal differences between the sexes30. In spite of this partisan sabotage, however, the truth shines through on both heavily ‘sex-normalized’ tests (such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices) and the few that also allow dimorphic functionality (such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale), men outperform women. The doctrine of intellectual equality was, in the words of Dr. Kanazawa, ‘manufactured out of political expediency (emphasis his)3.’

To those of us who have studied psychometrics in depth, the above data are well known. Why then are single outlier studies chosen for public dissemination via the mainstream media? One cannot deny the selectivity of media reporting without being naïve or willfully disingenuous; you will never see, for example, such positivity from the media towards a study demonstrating the intellectual inferiority of a racial minority. If a single, small study showed results marginally in favor of blacks over whites, however? You can bet the media would have a jubilant field day with such ‘evidence’.

As a group similarly perceived as being highly privileged, men are open season for all kinds of disparagement in the press, all ostensibly in the name of furthering an egalitarian agenda. Indeed, all feminist rhetoric carries with it implications of male inferiority in some form or another, usually moral but often intellectual and emotional. It is unclear whether the individuals responsible for such biased proclamations genuinely believe that they are somehow aiding female empowerment, or are simply venting their spleen against their ‘hated oppressors.’ What is clear, however, is that this inaccurate, degrading narrative from the MSM is an issue worth caring about. Men and boys are increasingly subject to demeaning, chauvinistic messages in their daily lives, which (through stereotype threat) have already impacted upon their studying, and can only worsen their mental health and, therefore, their already high suicide rates.

To a large degree, cultural narratives shape the society around them. Let us not let this bullshit narrative infect and, therefore, shape the society of tomorrow. And take it from me: it IS bullshit.






6. (Japan)


8. (Estonia)

9. (South Africa)

10. (Hong Kong)



13. (College students)

14. (Estonia)


16. (University students)



19. and Herzegovina)




23. This was conducted in 2011, and uses a very carefully chosen standardization sample (stratified by demographic) of the US population.

24. Brazil, 2012

25. Portugal, 2012

26. Sudan, 2015

27. China, 2015




Recommended Content