I don't think it's accurate to generalize that more men in the "genius" and "above average" categories represents that men are "smarter."

As I understand it, there are also significantly more men than women with very low IQs. Does this mean men are "dumber"?

Women, it appears, do tend to be more "average" in the areas IQ measures. Men are spread out all over the map, while women cluster in the middle.

This is true in terms of bahavior, as well. More males tend to become high-powered leaders, but more males also tend to become homeless, or end up in jail. Women cluster closer to the norm, and fewer females end up at either extreme. Saying women are less likely to become extremely successful only tells half the story -- they're also less likely to become extreme screw-ups.

I think a big reason for this is that women, in general, appear to be less inclined to take risks, and tend to choose security/certainty over excitement/possibility.

Check out the videos on bigboys.com sometime -- it's a web site that features amusing/dangerous/talented behaviors. Every other video is someone getting a limb broken, lighting themselves on fire, getting in a fight, etc, all while engaging in unusually risky behavior. And they're *all males*. Far more males tend to engage in high-risk, high-intensity behaviors generally than females.

Yes, there are fewer women who are unusually successful financially/academically/intellectually or otherwise. But pursuing success aggressively is a high-risk behavior. You have to accept the possibility that you'll lose your shirt, if you want to take the risks necessary to achieve success.

You seem to be assuming that IQ is actually a useful measurement of something that actually exists in the world. Given that there's not even a consensus on what intelligence is, let alone how we might measure it, IQ is about as scientific as phrenology, and doesn't lend itself to nearly as cool drawings. Why isn't there a "visual IQ", a single number that sums up how well your visual system is working? Or a single number that sums up how healthy you are? It's because we know enough about the visual system and the workings of the body to know that any such number would gloss over so many disparate functions that it would be essentially contentless.

Listen, I don't agree with a lot of things this whacko Adam Packer says, but as for Tierney's comment - "Why isn't there a 'visual IQ', a single number that sums up how well your visual system is working?" - when is the last time you went to an optometrist? My visual IQ is 20/20.

Does that make me smart?