>>11949812IQ tests originally showed a distinctive and persisting gap between male and female performance.
Over the decades, these tests were adjusted such that both women and men would score very similar averages. One obviously can argue that this is due to better education in females. However it is shown that even modern women show this distinctive gap when they are administered the old IQ test. However, I don't have the source for that.
>They seem to do well at bureaucratic tasks, such as finishing a university educationThese tasks are monotonous with clearly defined routines. Women don't do worse than men when it comes to following orders.
>but how well can they come up with and test new ideas? Women are less aggressive than men, thus are considerably less likely to deviate from a given norm. Discovering new things however implies transcending a norm, something that women generally avoid.
Women are also more neurotic (on average). Neuroticism is linked with the desire to fit in and to conform to norms and standards regardless of how arbitrary they are. Again something that is aversive to intellectual inquiries.
As implied above, women probably do considerably worse at IQ tests than men. Women score 4 points below men on tests administered today. Women also show a lower variance when it comes to IQ distribution, causing more women to be average whereas men predominate among those with low and high IQ. Even admitting that women do somewhat worse than men and have a narrow distribution doesn't ultimately explain the waste underrepresentation of females in science and philosophy. I assume that even those females that are cognitively able to achieve something failed to do so because of personal disinclination, child-bearing, rigid thinking patterns and lack of aggressive inquisition.
