"So intelligent people have lower libidos and less masculine physiques. What hormone is responsible for both sex drive and masculine builds? That’s right: testosterone.
And two new papers suggest that testosterone may depress IQ. One team found that salivary testosterone levels were lower for preadolescent boys with IQs above 130 and below 70. (the same two groups most likely to be virgins in adolescence)
Another paper suggests that a gene responsible for androgen sensitivity and higher sperm counts may also create a tradeoff for intelligence."
Total horsecrap. They have less masculine physiques because they tend to study all the time. It also seems that 130 is the definition of intelligence here. That’s pretty damn high. Average is 100, retarded is 70, and genius is 130. So what most people consider “intelligent” probably begins around 115 or 120, so they probably should have used that range. 130 is extreme and so is 70. You can’t make generalizations from extremes.
Also, what’s the definition of a “masculine Physique”? I’m a skinny bastard but I’m also a horny bastard, so the definition has to rest on more than just being hyyuuge and rippped.
If Testosterone lowers IQ, then why do kids with IQ below 70 also have low T? It should be high, not low.
Finally, correlation does not imply causation. Meaning we don’t know what causes what: Does having an extremely low or extremely high IQ mean that this causes low Test, or does low Test cause low/high IQ?
Also keep in mind that exercise naturally boosts T levels. Those with IQs over 130 are probably to busy chasing intellectual pursuits and those with IQs under 70 just might not be capable of it because 70 is considered the borderline for mental retardation.
just my two cents
[quote]romanaz wrote:
so booksmart people have low T levels?
man thank god for studies, done by the same booksmart people with low T levels.
booksmarts is not real intelligence imo…
[/quote]
And what exactly would you consider “real intelligence?”
IQ tests are designed to measure problem solving ability, and if taking knowledge and applying it to abstract or real situations isn’t intelligence, then I don’t know what is.
Really, and I don’t mean to be rude, but your spelling, general tone, and punctuation, or lack thereof, would appear to suggest you may have a bias regarding just what intelligence is.
Seriously, romanaz, “book smarts” clearly refers to something along the lines of accumulated, retained knowledge from literary sources. I think this has very little to do with IQ.
You seem like a real hardcore, “street smarts” kind of guy. (grin)
So basically which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Also, no mention of environmental factors. Was there any outside influence as a child? Did the boy get a football for his 7th birthday or a K’nex set?
How many good looking girls does the intelligent guy have in his AP Honors class as opposed to the guy who was getting drunk/laid the night before instead of studying for his HSPA?
This can’t go without mention.
Here. This guy doesn’t have a college education.
I just mentioned him because he is only the smartest guy in America and he’s also a weight lifter! Pfff. Flush that article.
The article was written so that nerds could feel better about the fact that they don’t get laid. Isn’t that obvious?
To those stating that 130 is extremely high, you first have to entertain the idea that this study does not state what the basis of the score is. It gives no mention of whether it uses the Stanford-Binet test, the Wechsler test, whether it uses the Gaussian bell curve or not, etc. Very vague terms and loosely based numbers in this study.
if test makes you stupider then how comes theres only two girls in my calculas class? there was three in my O-chem class, but there was only six people total, hey it aint ivy league jerkass.
Obviously the first article in itself provides little more than speculation about the negative correlation between IQ and testosterone.
I checked out the other article quickly and I’d have to say that the T levels in prepubescent children should not be taken as any sort of reliable evidence that T suppresses intelligence in grown adult males. Not are there just too many other uncontrolled variables, but prepubescent boys are worlds apart from adult males.
There is also the problem of causation vs correlation which has also been established.
There is also the possibility that higher T levels in prepubes means that they simply lack the attentiveness to complete any test adequately. The IQ test is also not a definitive test of intelligence… etc… there are just too many unknowns.
I’d also pin a lot of this to the self-fulfilling prophecy fallacy. Stereotypes and the desire to conform to a niche/identity are strong social forces…
[quote]Contrl wrote:
To those stating that 130 is extremely high, you first have to entertain the idea that this study does not state what the basis of the score is. It gives no mention of whether it uses the Stanford-Binet test, the Wechsler test, whether it uses the Gaussian bell curve or not, etc. Very vague terms and loosely based numbers in this study.[/quote]
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Contrl wrote:
To those stating that 130 is extremely high, you first have to entertain the idea that this study does not state what the basis of the score is. It gives no mention of whether it uses the Stanford-Binet test, the Wechsler test, whether it uses the Gaussian bell curve or not, etc. Very vague terms and loosely based numbers in this study.
This is what I was going to say.[/quote]
I wasn’t exactly going to say this as I don’t know enough about IQ tests to differentiate the different types but I was under the impression that 160 is considering genius. I scored 128 and I think I’m intelligent but nowhere near genius. Hell, I have trouble understanding the science behind some of the tnation articles!