So you firstly admit there is reasonable evidence to support the “variability hypothesis.”
Three paragraphs later, you describe the implications of this reasonable hypothesis as “sexist.”
But if someone believes this “reasonable” hypothesis, and assumes you are, on average, (very) marginally less likely to be of 97%+ IQ, well that is no more sexist than assuming you’re likely to be much shorter than a man having never met you.
I mean, I guess some dude with a 97% percentile IQ assumes he’s smarter than 97% of people he meets. More likely he interacts with smarter people, so this is like 10% of the people he’s meeting. So he thinks some dude has a 10% chance of being smarter than him but you have only an 8.5% chance, and this discrepancy causes you mental anguish?
Brah, imagine being a white guy who can jump.
Alternatively, walk into a car dealership. If you have a 97% iq, 100% of people will underestimate your intelligence, whether male of female.
So you firstly admit there is reasonable evidence to support the “variability hypothesis.”
Three paragraphs later, you describe the implications of this reasonable hypothesis as “sexist.”
But if someone believes this “reasonable” hypothesis, and assumes you are, on average, (very) marginally less likely to be of 97%+ IQ, well that is no more sexist than assuming you’re likely to be much shorter than a man having never met you.
I mean, I guess some dude with a 97% percentile IQ assumes he’s smarter than 97% of people he meets. More likely he interacts with smarter people, so this is like 10% of the people he’s meeting. So he thinks some dude has a 10% chance of being smarter than him but you have only an 8.5% chance, and this discrepancy causes you mental anguish?
Brah, imagine being a white guy who can jump.
Alternatively, walk into a car dealership. If you have a 97% iq, 100% of people will underestimate your intelligence, whether male of female.