Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 116 of 116

Thread: IQ versus RQ (rationality)

  1. #101  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by EnterTheYeti
    Would an RQ test be unfairly skewed towards males?
    You think that men are more rational? Why?
    I've only been here a day, but in that time, I've seen your posts and none of them contribute anything positive to the discussion. Your question may be valid, and debate is obviously welcome on this forum, but I don't think I'll be wasting any more time with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by EnterTheYeti
    Would an RQ test be unfairly skewed towards males?
    How does an RQ test have unfairly skewed results? If there's a predisposition for males to have a higher sense of rationality than women, it would become apparent, but this is just a correlation, and doesn't mean the test is inherently flawed. Also, this skew in data, if it exists, may just show that there actually is such a predisposition, leading men to tend to be more rational than women, who would then tend to be less rational.

    Personally, I don't see why there would be a skew, either way.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by EnterTheYeti
    Would an RQ test be unfairly skewed towards males?
    How does an RQ test have unfairly skewed results? If there's a predisposition for males to have a higher sense of rationality than women, it would become apparent, but this is just a correlation, and doesn't mean the test is inherently flawed. Also, this skew in data, if it exists, may just show that there actually is such a predisposition, leading men to tend to be more rational than women, who would then tend to be less rational.

    Personally, I don't see why there would be a skew, either way.
    I guess I see your point on whether or not the test would be skewed. I never thought of it that way. The test only gives results. Thanks.

    As far as your personal opinion, could that be because we grew up in a world where being PC trumps all? Being rational can sometimes get a man labeled a chauvinist pig.

    I guess I could post test results from Meyers-Briggs tests, and the disparity of genders in church attendance as proof of my opinion, but maybe I have already steered this too far off topic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    My personal experience would suggest rationality (or irrationality) is equally common across the genders. One slight indication agin the fairer sex is that the percentage of highly religious is greater among women than men. If you agree with me that religious faith is irrational, that may point to a trend. Or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by EnterTheYeti
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by EnterTheYeti
    Would an RQ test be unfairly skewed towards males?
    How does an RQ test have unfairly skewed results? If there's a predisposition for males to have a higher sense of rationality than women, it would become apparent, but this is just a correlation, and doesn't mean the test is inherently flawed. Also, this skew in data, if it exists, may just show that there actually is such a predisposition, leading men to tend to be more rational than women, who would then tend to be less rational.

    Personally, I don't see why there would be a skew, either way.
    I guess I see your point on whether or not the test would be skewed. I never thought of it that way. The test only gives results. Thanks.

    As far as your personal opinion, could that be because we grew up in a world where being PC trumps all? Being rational can sometimes get a man labeled a chauvinist pig.

    I guess I could post test results from Meyers-Briggs tests, and the disparity of genders in church attendance as proof of my opinion, but maybe I have already steered this too far off topic?
    I didn't grow up in a PC world. My opinion comes from dealing with a lot of people, all with different opinions, and different levels of logic skills and rationality. I always noticed the most extreme rational on the male side, and the most extreme irrational on the female side, but also that there were usually the same ratio of irrational to rational, regardless of gender. Personal experience with well over 1000 people who are supposed to be the intelligent of my area, I found most were relatively rational, with about a 2:3 female to male ratio.

    When dealing with the people I serve at my job, I see the other end of the spectrum... A mass majority irrational, with seldom a rational person.



    And no worries, The thread is still as on topic as the OP.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by EnterTheYeti
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by EnterTheYeti
    Would an RQ test be unfairly skewed towards males?
    How does an RQ test have unfairly skewed results? If there's a predisposition for males to have a higher sense of rationality than women, it would become apparent, but this is just a correlation, and doesn't mean the test is inherently flawed. Also, this skew in data, if it exists, may just show that there actually is such a predisposition, leading men to tend to be more rational than women, who would then tend to be less rational.

    Personally, I don't see why there would be a skew, either way.
    I guess I see your point on whether or not the test would be skewed. I never thought of it that way. The test only gives results. Thanks.

    As far as your personal opinion, could that be because we grew up in a world where being PC trumps all? Being rational can sometimes get a man labeled a chauvinist pig.

    I guess I could post test results from Meyers-Briggs tests, and the disparity of genders in church attendance as proof of my opinion, but maybe I have already steered this too far off topic?
    I didn't grow up in a PC world. My opinion comes from dealing with a lot of people, all with different opinions, and different levels of logic skills and rationality. I always noticed the most extreme rational on the male side, and the most extreme irrational on the female side, but also that there were usually the same ratio of irrational to rational, regardless of gender. Personal experience with well over 1000 people who are supposed to be the intelligent of my area, I found most were relatively rational, with about a 2:3 female to male ratio.

    When dealing with the people I serve at my job, I see the other end of the spectrum... A mass majority irrational, with seldom a rational person.



    And no worries, The thread is still as on topic as the OP.
    Your experience with the extremes in gender stereotype remind me of the extremes in the IQ test. Where women have high IQ's just as well as men, however, men inhabit both extremes of the IQ's highest and lowest.

    Is that your guess about RQ? with men bordering on the extreme. I don't know just guessing, and if there is an EQ it would also give results with women bordering the extremes but also showing that men have high capacity of emotion?

    Again, I don't know the answer but it seems rational :/. There probably is already something written and studied on this, but it is a topic of interest to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    It's an interesting topic in general. I've generalized based on my two observation experiences. Men and women have a relatively equal predisposition to rationality. Humans are generally less rational than your average logician, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor is it absolutely correct. It's just a trend that one person has noticed.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    40
    its pointless to converse with marcus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    ...
    Last edited by Chucknorium; September 30th, 2014 at 08:05 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Most ancestors proved smarter than the general population.
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Proved? Then it should be no problem to provide us with some of the proof it was proven with.
    Ancestors by definition are reproductively successful living things. We're the proof. Others not so smart are dead and ended, and in most cases forgotten. "Smarts" is efficacy, and it seldom requires a high RQ among modern humans. Smarts strike the highly rational as metagaming.
    But you're equating rationality with the likelihood of reproduction. What if an irrational belief somehow increases the chances of mating? Like optimism?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Most ancestors proved smarter than the general population.
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Proved? Then it should be no problem to provide us with some of the proof it was proven with.
    Ancestors by definition are reproductively successful living things. We're the proof. Others not so smart are dead and ended, and in most cases forgotten. "Smarts" is efficacy, and it seldom requires a high RQ among modern humans. Smarts strike the highly rational as metagaming.
    But you're equating rationality with the likelihood of reproduction. What if an irrational belief somehow increases the chances of mating? Like optimism?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EnterTheYeti
    Would an RQ test be unfairly skewed towards males?
    You think that men are more rational? Why?
    I think it's not about being rational, but that the male point of view has domineered how this world has been built. Now there's finally women who are getting to be in charge, and who knows, perhaps there will be a huge change in the way we rationalize things as human beings as women become more involved in being CEOs, Presidents, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    13
    Plus it would be really interesting if women were in power if we would have practically no wars, or ridiculously bloody ones. Any thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by aknyazik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EnterTheYeti
    Would an RQ test be unfairly skewed towards males?
    You think that men are more rational? Why?
    I think it's not about being rational, but that the male point of view has domineered how this world has been built. Now there's finally women who are getting to be in charge, and who knows, perhaps there will be a huge change in the way we rationalize things as human beings as women become more involved in being CEOs, Presidents, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    The best way to win an argument is to engage in one with users that either are (A) Unactive (B) Uninterested.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    It is becoming increasingly automatic to me to check post dates.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by knyazik View Post
    Plus it would be really interesting if women were in power if we would have practically no wars, or ridiculously bloody ones. Any thoughts?
    A number of female national leaders come to mind who have led their countries into war. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Mrs. Bandaranaike and so on. Not to mention female monarchs like Queen Elizabeth I who did the same. There will be plenty of people who will claim that those women led their people into war because of the men behind them pushing. But I do not think historical evidence supports the idea that female leaders are less warlike.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •