[ExI] IQ and beauty

[Anders Sandberg]

On 2015-09-30 20:37, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com 
> <mailto:giulio at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Based on what I have seen on this planet, beauty and brains are
>     totally unrelated. Beautiful idiot, smart genius, smart idiot,
>     beautiful genius, there is plenty of all that. By the way, I have the
>     impression that all propositions (besides the trivial ones) that
>     contain "men" or "women" are very wrong.
>
>     ​ There are quite a few significant differences between men and
>     women that are far from trivial. Aside from the usual - women are
>     better with words and men with directions - women are better than
>     men at small muscle tasks, such as sewing, women stand great pain
>     better than men, women recover from romantic disappointments more
>     quickly than men, women's sexual capabilities are very different
>     from men's - and a lot more.  Verified by studies, not by old
>     wives' tales or folklore.
>
>
>

Kind of... I really reccomend Hyde's "The gender similarity hypothesis"
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.374.1723&rep=rep1&type=pdf
and her work on actually collecting the effect sizes of these 
differences. They exist, but they are rather small.
http://www.devpsy.org/teaching/gender/sex_differences.html

Significant differences are not necessarily important differences. 
Conversely, even small effect sizes sometimes have disproportionate 
effects out in the tails (look at the ratio of two Gaussian 
distributions with slightly different means). But most of the time small 
effect sizes have small effects.

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20151002/b67d6c9b/attachment.html>