Abaddon is one of us.. he isn’t a chauvanist for profit.

His reasons are all too tangible.

In his desperation to provide documentary evidence of a positive correlation between brain evoked potential and psychometric intelligence, Blinkhorn, as well as fellow left-wing colleague D.E. Hendrickson manufactured evidence for a 1982 study which purportedly demonstrated that such an association was an objectively quantifiable phenomenon. Most of the evidence gathered by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson was deliberately falsified, with much of the data being wilfully invented in order to further bolster claims of a direct causal relationship between average brain-evoked potentials and mental ability. The English psychologist of German extraction, Hans Eysenck, who is also celebrated as the great radical libertarian defender of hereditarianism, along with colleague P.T. Barrett, subjected much of the documentary evidence collected by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson to rigorous scientific scrutiny in two studies produced in 1992 and 1994 respectively. They failed to replicate any of Blinkhorn’s findings on string length measure of individual differences in average evoked potentials. In numerous instances, Eysenck and Barrett had actually managed to reverse the same association that had previously been established by Blinkhorn and co. Therefore, I submit that Blinkhorn is an academic charlatan; he is a pseudo-intellectual fraud who should, under no circumstances, be trusted by anyone seeking a rigorously scientific explanation of observed gender-based differences in human intelligence.

Blinkhorn’s rather quite inane and laughable criticisms of the research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005) are easily disposed of once all of the dust has settled. The most powerful evidence in favour of the meta-analysis produced by Lynn and Irwing (2004) is the fact that it is based on 57 representative general population samples that consist of a total of 80,928 participants. Much of the available evidence for greater male mental ability in childhood clearly reveals that there is a marginal male intellectual superiority up until the onset of early adolescence. When the child reaches the fifteenth year of his physical development, his level of general intelligence increases by 5-10 IQ points; both female intellectual development and cranial capacity remains roughly static throughout the period of her adolescence beginning with the onset of her first menarche. In full confirmation of this, a study was conducted by M. Y. Quereshi and Rainer Seitz (1993) on the basis of those raw scores obtained through the administration of a comprehensive battery of psychometric tests (WPPSI, WISC-R, and the WPPSI-R) to children under the age of 6 years. On all three tests, it was shown that pre-pubescent males actually scored considerably higher than the average female. Through this avenue of psychometric testing, it was clearly demonstrated that males are significantly more intelligent than females (p < 0.05). Moreover, the fact of substantial gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence on the WISC-R in favour of male intellectual dominance was also further reinforced by the researchers Lynn, Raine, Venables, Mednick, and Irwing (2005). Boys obtained a significantly higher full scale IQ by 5.8 points; in addition, boys also obtained a higher performance IQ by 6.5 points and a higher mean verbal IQ by 1.0 points. Furthermore, it was mathematically calculated through a rigorous methodological analysis based on a series of complex statistical computations that boys possess a significant advantage on measures of Spearman’s operationalization of fluid intelligence, otherwise known as “g”. According to the fundamental statistical methodology of principal component analysis, it was determined that boys had an advantage over girls on Spearman’s g by 6.15 IQ points. This raw test scores underlying this figure are finally converted into a series of point-biserial correlations. The resulting numbers are then entered within the full matrix of subtest correlations where these are subjected to a further factor analysis. By subsequently determining the sex loading on g, one finally ends up with a positive correlation between sex and g of .224, the equivalent of 6.9 IQ points. It is this evidence which fully establishes the developmental aspect of Lynn and Irwing’s theory of female intellectual inferiority, namely that a marginal sex difference in mental capacity exists giving males the advantage until the 14th year. At the age of 15, a significant cognitive difference between males and females is manifested much more visibly; the statistical mean of male intelligence gradually increases to its adult value of anywhere between 5-10 IQ points in favour of male intellectual superiority.

Moreover, there are further lines of converging evidence from four adult samples of gender-based differences in intelligence (n = 11,896) which confirm that men are intellectually superior to women by about as much as 10 IQ points or two-thirds of one standard deviation. The researchers Colom, Juan-Espinosa, Abad, and Garcia, on the Spanish standardization of the WAIS-III, found considerable sexual dimorphism in human intelligence on two separate studies conducted in 2000 and 2002. They mathematically calculated the male lead over the female in intelligence to be 3.6 IQ points, a finding which they have modestly described as being “negligible”. Furthermore, H. Nyborg (2005) has argued that higher level of male intelligence in general as well as the wider mean distribution directly create those conditions necessary for an “exponentially increased male-female ratio at the high end of the g distribution”. According to Nyborg, this also goes a long way towards providing an explanation for the universality of male patriarchal dominance for untold millennia. Consistent with this body of accumulated data, Canadian investigators D.N. Jackson and J.P. Rushton, in a large standardization sample (2006, where n = 102, 515), reportedly found a male advantage in mental capacity of 3.6 IQ points amongst 17 year olds.

Additionally, Blinkhorn has foolishly criticized Lynn and Irwing for not adopting weighting by sample size, as well as excluding the Backhoff-Escudero study (1996). By resorting to such mud-slinging, Blinkhorn further manifests his complete ignorance of meta-analytic technique as a means of correcting error and bias in research findings. After submitting a number of psychometric tests to a rigorous methodological analysis, Lynn and Irwing managed to isolate a number of moderator variables that could produce differing estimates of gender-based differences in mental capacity. The two researchers found a strong amount of evidence for two such variables; variables which could possibly skew the results for any investigation into sex differences in psychometric intelligence. These were, respectively, (1) the kind of test administered and (2) the tendencies of some universities to selectively recruit brighter men or brighter women. Because of the presence of these strong moderator variables, many of the studies provided biased estimates of the sex difference in psychometric intelligence. A logarithmic graph constructed by Lynn and Irwing and organized around d-score values demonstrates that the Mexican study itself is heavily biased and helps produce a significant underestimate of gender-based differences in mental ability, ultimately making it a statistical outlier. Given the high probability of bias in this sample, to weight it by its sample size (n = 9,048) would produce a serious underestimate of the population sex difference in IQ. Therefore, the authors adopted the methodological principles of meta-analysis as laid down by R. Rosenthal (1995), and taking the median estimates, including that of E. Backhoff-Escudero, ended up with a measure in Cohen’s d, which is the difference between two group means divided by the standard deviation of either population group, expressed mathematically as d = M1 – M2 / O (the pooled standard deviation). The Cohen’s d extracted in this situation is .31; this dividend favouring males is again converted into a 4.6 IQ point difference which accurately reflects prevailing trends within the general population sex demographic itself. As determined by Messieurs Lynn and Irwing, these calculations demonstrate that there is a preponderance of evidence clearly showing that they have produced an under-estimate in gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence and definitely not the overestimate as Blinkhorn preposterously imagines.

Interestingly enough, Blinkhorn, by employing a similar methodology, uncovers a marginal male intellectual superiority to the mentally inferior female. According to his method, by adjusting the standard deviation of 15 IQ points to 10 IQ points, and weighting the corresponding figure by sample size will inevitably produce a mean difference of 1.5 IQ points (10 x 0.15) still favouring the vastly more intellectually superior male.

Anyone who employs the study of Ian Deary et al (2003) as a means of establishing that there are no gender differences in intelligence either has an ideological axe to grind or has simply not read the paper in its entirety. The study by Deary et al is a study of population sex differences in IQ variability pertaining to a small number of individuals living at a particular socio-historical conjuncture before the Second World War. As the authors clearly point out, its findings are absolutely not generalizable to any group of individuals living before or after the time of the study and is not even applicable to other population demographics. Deary et al says:

The SMS1932 data apply to people whose main educational and occupational attainments occurred from just before the Second World War until retirement in the mid-1980s. Therefore, the distributions of IQ scores represent this specific cohort without necessarily generalising to prior or subsequent cohorts.

The Deary et al study itself happens to be based on considerably antiquated data (an IQ test administered to 11-year-olds in 1932!) at a time in the 1930s and 1940s when the initial tests constructed by Sir Cyril Burt (another fraudulent charlatan like our dear Steve Blinkhorn) and Lewis M. Terman were strongly biased in favour of females. However, the original Stanford-Binet underwent a series of successive re-standardizations involving the subsequent introduction of gender-neutral items replacing those terms already biased towards both female verbal ability and emotional intelligence. From the 1950s onwards, the tests themselves have become gradually free of bias; even within the frigid atmosphere of gender neutrality enforced by the burgeoning political correctness of the twenty-first century, psychometric testing itself still clearly demonstrates a considerable degree of male intellectual superiority over the cognitive deficiencies of the inferior female.

From what I understand, the main objective of the Deary et al study is to purportedly reveal the existence and underlying basis of whatever significant differences already exist in the standard deviations between males and females, given the fact that the male variability hypothesis had been long established by a general consensus emerging like a mist from the decadence of late Victorian times. It would seem that the basic idea of the paper is to show that boys, during their childhood development phase, tend to overpopulate the high and low extremes of cognitive ability. Because the findings only apply to gender-based differences in human cognition during childhood, the authors clearly state that their study in no way contradicts the research of Lynn and Irwing, scholars who have vigorously shown, through much of their research, that there are sex differences in innate mental capacity from mid-adolescence to early adulthood. To quote the authors verbatim:

The SMS1932 data apply to childhood and so do not address the debates concerning sex differences in abilities in later adolescence, adulthood, and old age (Hedges & Nowell, 1995). For example, Lynn (1994, 1998) suggests that any male–female mean difference becomes more marked after age 16…

Consistent with this line of reasoning, the authors also admit that N.J. Mackintosh (1998), an academic with strong gender feminist proclivities, agreed with Lynn (1998) that males score significantly higher than females on the Wechsler intelligence test which, even on an international level, is still one of the most commonly administered tests. Further bolstering this claim, a scientific paper produced by A.R. Jensen and C.R. Reynolds (1983) found, on the basis of results obtained from the WISC-R, that the male IQ was 103.08, with a corresponding standard deviation of 14.54; women had a somewhat lower IQ of 101.41, with a corresponding standard deviation of 13.55. Jensen, the great pioneer in understanding race-based differences in mental capacity, typically dismissed male intellectual superiority over the female as being the direct product of a somewhat marginal phenomenon. However, on a deeper level of statistical analysis, the colossal significance of such numbers can be readily seen by immediately converting them into z-scores. This is accomplished by means of the equation z = x (raw score) – mu (mean population score) / sigma (standard deviation). By plugging the numbers from Jensen’s statistical research into the equation itself, we find that there is a 55% probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female. Alternately, there is a 45% probability that the average female is more intelligent than the average male. Ergo, men are intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female because there are more average men who happen to be much smarter than the average for mean female intelligence.
The proportion of white to gray matter in the male and female central nervous system is largely irrelevant to those scientific facts which lucidly and abundantly demonstrate female intellectual inferiority. Consistent with the research of Haier et al (2003), it has been shown that men have bigger brains than women (d = .30-.35) and have 15% more neurons than the female brain (Packenberg and Gundersen, 1997). The presence of a significantly greater quantity of neurons within the male brain means that men can process and systemize considerably more information and at a much accelerated pace than the retrograde functioning of the primitive, lesser evolved female brain.

Lastly, the“file drawer” effect is the belief that only those papers which prove the existence of gender-based differences in intelligence get published. Those papers that reveal little or no gender difference in mental capacity are presumably archived with little or no recognition from the academic community. This is sheer nonsense. That there is no bias operating here, especially when it comes to the published research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005), is evident from the fact that even Blinkhorn himself observes, in his frequently hysterical rantings, that virtually none of the published literature focusing on Progressive Matrices deals with gender differences. The existence of a large number of studies in print, propagandizing the notion that there are null sex differences and touting the standard ideological pap of second wave feminism, simply undermines the so-called file drawer effect. The fact that 21 out of 22 population samples (with the sole exception of Backhoff-Escudero) based on IQ differences between the sexes has shown that men are more intelligent than women simply proves to a sceptical world, dominated by the false egalitarianism of an omnipresent liberal establishment, that male intellectual superiority is a universal phenomenon that must be dealt with at once.

In short, the fact that women are both intellectually and biologically inferior to men is a fact that is fully substantiated by a tremendous amount of experimental data; it is a fact that was first recognized by Paul Broca in 1861 and subsequently confirmed by the great evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin in 1871 and 1874. Of all the major statistical analyses of gender-based differences in mental capacity produced during the present day, 21 out of 22 studies demonstrate that men exceed women in average mental capacity on all psychometric measures of g. Thus, it is impossible that any amount of radical social constructionist theory can ever undermine the fact that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female. The notion that males and females are roughly equivalent in mental capacity is not grounded on any firm scientific basis whatsoever. It is a falsehood propagated by generations of gender radicals who have taken the high road of Ms Wollstonecraft’s Folly; they are benighted fools, filled with all the naiveté of a child, who have become fiercely ideologically motivated by the cardinal tenets of Marxist sociological analysis and feminist rhetoric through a gradual process of media-directed brain-washing. Those who continue to propagate the lie that women are the intellectual and biological equals of men are dangerous revolutionaries who have no interest in the substance of external reality or the results of empirical observation itself. Only those people interested in reinforcing their own personal bigotry would dare say that women were the equal of men; the notion of equality between the sexes is not founded on any kind of scientific reasoning whatsoever.

Today, men are intellectually superior to women; and far into the foreseeable future, men will always be intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female.

We should stop believing what we wish to believe; we must break the crystal bubble by trying to see the world as it is; this is the beginning of modern conservatism.

MALES HAVE GREATER GENERAL INTELLIGENCE THAN FEMALES

herpes shiny skin

genital herpes ipictures

bumps but not herpes

My car broke down again, and so I have to spend a majority of the work week in Fairbanks at a friends house to make it to work. I am working at getting them internet capable however as of right now they’re not. The only reason I am talking tonight is the fact that I don’t have to work tomorrow.

I almost went to jail last month as well. I was at a bar and was quite loudly condemning the principle of child-support in it’s current form as a form of slavery when Capt. Save-a-Ho appeared to rescue all of the damsels in distress. Apparently what I had said, upset his “lady” (note to self, never go to honky-tonk bars to drink and converse). We had a meeting in the parking lot which ended up with a few men interested in my whereabouts.

The work scene here isn’t so hot right now, I have had 20 hr weeks for the last 2 weeks, however things will pick up about a month from now.

So, I have relocated, managed to hold my job, (and for all you ladies out there, I am still not “delinquent” on my child “support” the only thing you seem to care about) and am transferring myself from one house to another week to week without a form of transportation. All the while I am hauling wood (2 cords a week) for my father (he’s 60), trying to fix my car (again), fixing my CPU (by myself) maintaining fires, and generally trying to be a productive member of society. It’s been really busy for me you might say. My apologies to you for not returning your phone calls but at -20 through -50 one works torwards survival.

As to your discussion with wolfe, he’s right. A whore isn’t worth your life Sots. You are an intelligent Man. You have a lot to give to or to take from this world and a lot of time to do so as well. Is one sorry human being worth all of that? Look forward in time a little bit. Do you enjoy the prospect of spending the next 5-100 years in prison? The prison-industrial complex will certainly thank you for your time like it does for all of the Men that have spent their time, sweat and cheap labor there. All over one woman and a worthless one at that. However do what you like, it’s your life. Who am I to judge or even advise you on your own problems?

@Wolfe: Welcome to my small blog. You are free to say whatever you like here as I am sure you already know. However in my view everyone here is a peer, an equal until proven otherwise. No one has to “earn” anything. Perhaps to be your peer this would be a different matter, however on this small piece of the internet we are all worthy of the same respect.

Death is the inevitable consequence of life. Not a pretty one for sure , and my condolences for your loss good sir. I too have lost as well. I too have been betrayed as well. I too have lived from check to check, and have lived the “simple” life as well. I have lived in cars, under bridges, in boxes, on couches all in the name of “child support”. I don’t strive to attain much from this society because in my view I don’t need that much, nor is there much worth striving for from my perspective.

The one thing that gets me about your comments is the dreams. When I sleep I dream quite a bit. My dreams are consumed by my children, not the female that birthed them. I adapted and took a fair drinking habit to the extreme. It kills the dreams and numbs the pain of loss. I don’t have to see my sons asking me where I am, or why I “left” them alone. It is a terrible thing for a parent to behold either sleeping or awake. Your thoughts?

@ Emmah: You said: I don’t think anger in all contexts is such a negative emotion. I think the kind of burning resentment that people can contain within is like a poison, it eats you from inside. On the other hand, there is such a thing as healthy anger, an anger directed at injustice faced by you and those around you, the sense of energy and power one can gain from such type of anger is generally for the glory, not for the degradation.

Anger is ALWAYS a reaction. You are never angry at something that never happened to you. The reaction itself depends upon the person that is reacting in my view. Sometimes it’s a selfish reaction, sometimes not. Such is the randomness of human nature. However I will say that without Anger and it’s brother Rage, much of human society would not exist as of right now. We as human beings have a bad tendency to focus and label only the negative results of these emotions.

Resentment, bitterness and hatred is in my view merely Anger left or forced to be unanswered. It does consume when left to itself, because it has no outlet it is simply internalized. No one is angry without at least a reason whatever that may be.

From what I read, you have no problem with anger itself, however its focus and direction is the problem? What would you suggest then Emmah? Most people are at least self-aware, and are aware of what the cause of such anger is. I have made my views quite clear on the subject I would ask your own in response.

Emmah said: I do not fear righteous anger from men or any group. I fear anger that springs from vengeful minds, from those who have been twisted and consumed with bitterness and resentment, I fear that such people spearheading any kind of movement cares less about truth and more about hurting others as much as they have been hurt themselves. An understandable human reaction to the horrible pain and betrayal that some endure - but nonetheless terrifying for its lack of direction and precision.

Quite true, quite true in a sense. However if I may ask, who exactly did the twisting? The torturing, the extraction ect ect? How did such things come about? One must apply the Socratic method in life. Wouldn’t the idea to be to lessen that reaction or experience for the person him/herself? To apply synergy? Much of what I see now from the feminists is merely a power grab, and not an opportunity to end the gender “war” at all. It’s simply too express dominance in an area that women have held power over for quite some time. How saddening. In my view it terrifies because Male anger has a reason for being, a rightful one at that. It isn’t vengeful minds pursuing this endeavor, it’s rational ones seeking at least a rebuttal for the wrongs done unto them. Your thoughts?

Emmah said: Mostly I fear a downward spiral, as you do.

I fear entropy as well. I remain unconcerned about it because much of my life is unconnected from society or entrophy. I decided this many years ago. I am a member of the Ghost Nation, have been for awhile. Entrophy can only be checked by Synergy in my view and that isn’t going to happen when a state of conflict is the norm between genders.

@ DaveB: Thanks for the compliment. The Stand is one of Steven Kings better works, perhaps one of his best in his earlier writings. That piece is from page #540 bottom section.

-Strength and Honor-

I don’t think anger in all contexts is such a negative emotion. I think the kind of burning resentment that people can contain within is like a poison, it eats you from inside. On the other hand, there is such a thing as healthy anger, an anger directed at injustice faced by you and those around you, the sense of energy and power one can gain from such type of anger is generally for the glory, not for the degradation.

I do not fear righteous anger from men or any group. I fear anger that springs from vengeful minds, from those who have been twisted and consumed with bitterness and resentment, I fear that such people spearheading any kind of movement cares less about truth and more about hurting others as much as they have been hurt themselves. An understandable human reaction to the horrible pain and betrayal that some endure - but nonetheless terrifying for its lack of direction and precision.

Mostly I fear a downward spiral, as you do.