←back to thread

185 points ivewonyoung | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
agentcoops ◴[] No.45409472[source]
There's an ambiguity in the title, reflected in some comments below. It can be understood either as the claim that "in a particular human being, to be intelligent as measured by IQ means that you are more likely to be autistic", suggesting for example a trade-off between social and general intelligence; or the claim that "the evolution of the human brain and so human intelligence as such, which characterizes both those of low and high IQ, entailed those genetic shifts that made autism a possibility for our species but not other primates." The paper argues a form of the latter.
replies(5): >>45409754 #>>45409793 #>>45410064 #>>45410925 #>>45412115 #
cwmoore ◴[] No.45409754[source]
Thank you for the clarification. Can't read the paper.

Who was it that was quoted often a decade ago that described the intellectual variance difference between the sexes?

The research concluded that women are smarter (just kidding) that men have much greater variance while women are generally closer to the mean and one another in abilities.

Since differences between the sexes exist, I would also expect differences among the sexes to cluster for evolutionarily relevant reasons.

replies(5): >>45409818 #>>45409921 #>>45410441 #>>45411007 #>>45415278 #
1. jibal ◴[] No.45411007[source]
It was Larry Summers, who was frequently mischaracterized as having claimed that men were smarter than women. But he was far from innocent--it was one of the worst cases ever of failing to read the room--a room full of extremely accomplished and intelligent women ... and his speculations severely failed to account for cultural factors. It rationalized the status quo and suggested that nothing could change it. The history of women in STEM since then has refuted those speculations ... though the attack on "DEI" is turning the progress around.

> Since differences between the sexes exist, I would also expect differences among the sexes to cluster for evolutionarily relevant reasons

And what is one supposed to do with this vague generalization? Mostly it used to reinforce biases.