Her IQ is higher than Einstein’s. What does she care about? Her nails, fake tanning, and her hair. Lady genius in action!

18 Feb

See this kid?


He is 15 years old and his name is Jack Andraka.  He built a particle accelerator in his basement, and it sits next to his brother’s homemade furnace, which can reach temperatures hot enough to melt steel.


Oh, he also invented a simple test to detect pancreatic cancer at the earliest stages, winning the $75 000 Grand Prize at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.  His test will save thousands upon thousands of lives, and just might make death from pancreatic cancer a relic of the past.


He’s 15 years old.

See this kid?


Her name is Lauren Marbe.  She has an IQ higher than Einstein, Hawking, and Bill Gates.  She is 16 years old.  She is also using her brain to solve perplexing problems that confront humanity and hopes to one day achieve the sort of success Jack has managed to accomplish despite being one year younger.  She wants to cure cancer, create new sources of renewable energy and articulate a unified quantum theory that explains how matter came to exist.



Just kidding.

She “ loves fake tanning, having blonde highlights, manicures and getting glammed up for TOWIE parties with her friends”. Her ambition in life is to be a show girl in the theatre.




Well, then.

Of course, Jezebel has to chime in on something as amazing as a young person woman with a high IQ, and charmingly focuses only on what she looks like.  Way to dismantle those stereotypes, Jez!  Look how pretty she is!  How can she be so smart? What’s up with that?  Down with the patriarchy!


Rather interesting that Jezebel doesn’t touch what Miss SmartyPants intends to DO with her genius, no?

Well, duh.  Of course not.  That might imply that Lauren (and every other smart person) has some obligation to use their intelligence to benefit others. That smacks of responsibility, and whatever else we are, we are not ever, ever responsible for anything ever.

It’s an interesting question, no?  Do people with above average intelligence have an obligation to use that intelligence to benefit others?  Certainly not one we can impose, obviously.  I think an even more interesting question is DO people with above average intelligence use that intelligence to benefit others?

The Daily Mail put together a little chart showing how our girl Lauren (IQ 161) compares to other people of varying intelligence, and I think it’s rather interesting:

Charles Dickens – 180

Dr. David Livingstone – 170 

Charles Darwin -165

Stephen Hawking – 160

Quentin Tarantino – 160

Bill Gates – 160

 Sharon Stone – 154

Bill Clinton – 145

Shakira – 140

JFK – 119

A great writer, a great explorer, the man who first articulated the theory of evolution, a quantum theorist, the man who gave us Microsoft (mixed blessing!), a great film director, two world leaders and…

A pop star and an actress whose main claim to fame is flashing her ladybits on film.


There is a very ugly little reality that very few people like to confront, and certainly not those people who consider themselves feminists.  Intelligence is distributed across the population in a curve, with most people clustering around the average.  That’s WHY it’s the average.  It doesn’t matter objectively WHAT value is assigned to the average; it is just  a measure to express where most people fall.  In the case of IQ, the average is assigned the value of 100.

According to several different researchers, using different tests and methodologies,  women have a 101.41 mean IQ with a 13.55 standard deviation and men have a 103.08 mean IQ with a 14.54 standard deviation.

More or less equal.

See that little red arrow?  That’s the cutoff for MENSA.  People who have IQ’s higher than 130 are in the top 2% of the population, and the ratio of men to women is 2:1.


For every one woman who has an IQ higher than 130, there are two men.



It’s just a fact.  When it comes to being super-smart, there are twice as many men in the game.  What I find so very interesting is NOT that there are twice as many male geniuses than women, but rather what intelligent women chose to do with their brainpower.


Pop star


Show girl

Think I’m going to rail against that and demand that women start using their intelligence in more socially productive ways?

Nope.  I’m not.  Women of enormous intelligence can do one thing that benefits everybody: pass it on.  Have children.  Preferably male children.


Hey, Beyonce?  I have some news for you:  girls don’t run the world.  Boys do.  Know why?  Because they’re smarter than girls. And for whatever reason, they use their intelligence to develop simple tests to detect pancreatic cancer.

Lauren, the smartest thing you could ever do is track down Jack and marry him!  You never know.  He might like a showgirl with an IQ higher than Einstein.

You can dance while he saves the world.


Lots of love,


71 Responses to “Her IQ is higher than Einstein’s. What does she care about? Her nails, fake tanning, and her hair. Lady genius in action!”

  1. Anonymous February 18, 2013 at 16:01 #

    She will make a wonderful show girl.


  2. Marlo Rocci February 18, 2013 at 16:16 #

    She’s going to marry the high school football quarterback and have two kids by him. He’ll end up as a truck driver and they’ll and get divorced.


  3. Peter February 18, 2013 at 16:40 #

    Good thing you are not president at Harvard’s.
    Larry Summers was sacked for pointing at that bell curve.
    It’s dangerous to state facts…


  4. princesspixiepointless February 18, 2013 at 17:20 #

    Sorry mate, but we don’t have high school quaterbacks over here…or truck drivers…


  5. princesspixiepointless February 18, 2013 at 17:21 #

    She also said, maybe an architect!


  6. Alex February 18, 2013 at 17:29 #

    let’s wait till her natural beauty starts to fade. doubt she’ll be as happy partying when everyone is using her as a comparison.


  7. Peter February 18, 2013 at 17:45 #

    In that case she’ll probably be creative and marry the center forward who’ll end up as a lorry driver…?
    Although my guess is Rick Rockbanddrummer who’ll end up as Musical singer in Blackppol.


  8. zykos February 18, 2013 at 17:50 #

    IQ is a popular measure of intelligence because it is the only real *measure*, i.e. it assigns numbers to the concept, and people love numbers. But it’s useful to remember that this metric was crafter for the purposes of having a metric, not because something was already measurable. And the interesting thing is, it was crafter to fit an idea: that the distribution was normal (in a bell curve) and that women, on average, were as smart as men. What most people don’t know is the first IQ tests scored women lower than men, and it took a few tries before the numbers fit the theory.


  9. ar10308 February 18, 2013 at 17:56 #

    The smartest girl in my high school who was our Valedictorian (she had over a 4.0 GPA due to advanced placement classes), got so many scholarships that she actually turned a profit while double majoring in molecular biology and journalism in college. Guess what she ended up doing?
    She is now a local coverage reporter for an NFL team.
    During college, she made a huge transistion from being a nerdy girl focused on her studies, to a social butterfly willing to do anything to get ahead in the world of sports journalism. She got a full make-over and went from a 5 to a high-7. She accompanied her editors to strip clubs and bought them lap-dances, and that was only what she posted in her Facebook feed. Who knows what else she was willing to do to get ahead.
    So, from a woman who could have done truly great work in medicine or biology, she then decided she wanted to be on TV and talk about football with a bunch of sports dweebs.


  10. Bob Wallace February 18, 2013 at 18:16 #

    The problem with her having kids with Jack is Regression to the Mean. They’d have to have several kids until a really smart one popped up, then that kid would have to marry another smart one…and so on. And as Tina Turner sang, “What’s love got to do with it?” The shortest way to create really smart people is arraigned marriages.


  11. princesspixiepointless February 18, 2013 at 18:46 #

    hey liz, will delete, just repost. P


  12. princesspixiepointless February 18, 2013 at 18:48 #

    nice one, Peter. P


  13. princesspixiepointless February 18, 2013 at 19:06 #

    Hi Mike,
    will get to your concerns ASAP.
    The logo is class.
    Will get back to you more indepth soon.
    all the best


  14. Bee February 18, 2013 at 20:07 #

    Dr. David Livingstone was an explorer but that was secondary to his primary work as a Christian missionary and abolitionist. I visited his statue in Edinburgh, Scotland. His sculptor portrayed him holding only a Bible, not a compass or map.


  15. Athan Nyx February 18, 2013 at 20:32 #

    I do need to add that people like Jack are also over achievers… Not that it diminishes their accomplishments any but it makes me feel better about being a slow developer in terms of what I want to do.


  16. James Williams February 18, 2013 at 20:40 #

    The guy who invented IQs was French wan’t he? Anyway didn’t he warn that there were different types of intelligence?


  17. judgybitch February 18, 2013 at 20:49 #

    Oh absolutely there are. But no matter how you measure it, the two to one ratio appears to hold.


  18. realityforever February 18, 2013 at 20:54 #

    ‘Over’ achiever?!? Well, isn’t that a convenient label for you to give them? What to stop me from calling you an ‘underachiever’ then? Who makes those rules about what constitutes the defintions – you?


  19. realityforever February 18, 2013 at 20:59 #

    I am EXTREMELY dubious about this girl’s I.Q. score. Sorry, I’m not buying it. I’ve read so much about how testing is fiddled with nowadays & for some uncanny reason there are so many kids with enourmous I.Q.s nowadays, yet I meet very few of them who even halfway intelligent. I passed a teenage girl in the produce section of my gracery store last week who was picking up a bundle of carrots and asked her mother, “so do these come from the ground?” The best I can guess is all they teach children anymore is Marxist theory and Feminism. Maybe those were the questions on this ‘I.Q. test’ amounted to.

    They’ve just simply lowered the standards & this girl would have been nothing more than a slightly above average student 30-40 years ago.


  20. judgybitch February 18, 2013 at 21:03 #

    Even if her IQ is 200, she is still incredibly unlikely to do anything particularly useful with it.

    IQ tests are perfect examples of a tautology: What is an IQ? Something an IQ test measures. What does an IQ test measure? An IQ.

    The interesting thing is that no matter how IQ is measured, men tend to show up at the top of the scale twice as often as women.


  21. Professor Fox February 18, 2013 at 21:28 #

    JB, you should have added this woman to that list of intelligent people!

    May I present to you Jessica Steinhauser – “studied piano as a child, and performed at Carnegie Hall twice before the age of 15. By 16 she taught English at Tsuruga College in Japan.

    She won a full academic scholarship to Rutgers University and is a member of Mensa, with an IQ of 156.”

    Just one catch: Miss Steinhauser is known to most people as the porn star Asia Carrera, star of ~370 adult films. Grrlpower!


  22. angelowal February 18, 2013 at 21:42 #

    Ha, what is intelligence anyway; the ability to solve problems, right? My Mr. is a Mensa member with 147 IQ, and he’s not got an iota of common sense in that big brain of his, but he is great at puzzles.

    We went together to a Mensa meeting years ago at our local University. Jeebus, what an awful, boring evening, spent listening to truckers, carpenters, lawyers and professors whining pompously about how difficult it is to be so much smarter than everyone else (they thought I was a member too, not just a spouse, LOL).

    Dabnabbit, they beat me at Scrabble too which was to be my penultimate satisfaction! It wasn’t my fault – I never got any vowels 😉


  23. realityforever February 18, 2013 at 21:46 #

    The problem is IQ only tests what you’ve learned- had shoved down your throat & memorized. There is no test for creativity ot invention. I noticed Steve Jobs wasn’t on there (was a college dropout). Do actually think Kurt Cobain would have REALLY had a truly high IQ? Doubtful. Original thinking has nothing to do with a crap load of memorized facts.


  24. Anonymous February 18, 2013 at 22:37 #

    Marilyn vos Savant has the highest IQ on record. She writes an advice column for a Sunday paper. Yep.



  25. Ter February 18, 2013 at 23:14 #

    Hmmm, if there are twice as many men with IQ’s above 130 than women, could this also be a factor why there are more men than women in STEM and boardrooms? It will be interesting to see what effects gender-based quotas will have in the long term.


  26. judgybitch February 19, 2013 at 00:54 #

    Do the words “dumbing down” ring a bell?

    Forcing women into areas in which they have neither interest nor ability, whether that is a boardroom or the large hadron collider will have a very simple result: slowing shit down.

    The world runs on the power of the best and the brightest, most of whom are men. Forcing those men to carry along women for the sake of ideology means we won’t get their full power.

    What the hell is the point of that?


  27. judgybitch February 19, 2013 at 00:57 #

    That happens to me all the time! No goddamn vowels!!!!

    And to that, I can only say PFFT!

    Is it cold in here? BRRR

    Such as shame. Plural, of course. TSKTSKS!



  28. Clover February 19, 2013 at 08:13 #

    This is exactly what I spent years struggling to accept. I have an IQ of 163, and for years now I’ve been unable to find a female friend to talk ‘nerdy’ with. Plenty of male friends, and I’ve always got on well with my girl friends, but we talk about our hair and families when we hang out, and maybe play piano. It always annoyed me, because adults round me seemed to hold me up as an example of how women could be academically inclined, when in fact I saw myself as a somewhat lonely exception to the rule.
    That said, all my nerdy tendencies have led me to teaching and caring, which really aren’t very masculine professions. I used to want to be a researcher and politician, but since meeting my fiance? I only want that if it all fits in around the kids.


  29. mikebuchanan1957 February 19, 2013 at 08:35 #

    Another major issue is the difference between men’s and women’s gender-typical attitudes to paid employment. The renowned sociologist Gatherine Hakim pointed out in her Preference Theory (2000) that while four out of seven British men are ‘work-centred’, only one in seven British women is:


    We shouldn’t be surprised that while the number of women on FTSE100 boards is increasing fast, virtually all of them (the existing ones and the new ones) have been appointed as non-executive directors. With few exceptions, had they been men, they wouldn’t have got within a country mile of a FTSE100 board.

    In the UK the initiative to increase the number of women in boardrooms regardless of merit – an attack on meritocracy, a cornerstone of capitalism – is being driven by a Conservative-led coalition, led by the UK’s first feminist prime minister, David Cameron. What times we live in. The lunatics truly have taken over the asylum.

    A final question. When a woman says she’s looking for a ‘better’ work/life balance, is she looking for more work, or more life?

    Mike Buchanan



  30. mikebuchanan1957 February 19, 2013 at 09:02 #

    Oops, I put in the wrong link for Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory. As Homer Simpson would say, ‘Doh!’ Hopefully a reflection of my difficulty in engage my brain first thing in the morning, rather than a low IQ haha. The correct link:



  31. Kai February 19, 2013 at 18:20 #

    You know that men also tend to show up at the bottom end of the scale twice as often?
    (I don’t mean to disagree with your basic point, with which I agree, but the standardly accepted reason for why there are more men at the top hasn’t been mentioned, so I’m wondering if it’s not known.)

    It’s not about who is smarter, it’s that men have a wider bell curve. There are more men who are super geniuses, and more men who are mentally retarded (or whatever the proper term for an IQ of <50 is now). In most areas of intelligence, men tend to be spread farther out, filling in the extremes on both ends, while women cluster in the unremarkable middle.
    Whether men on average score a few points higher than women on average doesn't mean much in terms of great thinkers. It's the fact that despite the presence of at least some above-average men and women, when you get to the far end, it's nearly all men.

    Of course, this has nothing to do with how well you do or do not use the intelligence you have.


  32. judgybitch February 19, 2013 at 18:23 #

    Actually, Kai, that’s not true. The idea of the wide bell curve for men has been disproven repeatedly. Click the link in the story.


  33. Kai February 19, 2013 at 19:15 #

    Interesting. Thanks for addressing. I missed that link, and had not seen much in the way of repeated disproof. Will have to check into the more recent research.


  34. Athan Nyx February 23, 2013 at 22:33 #

    Nothing stops me from being an underachiever. That could very well be true and probably can be true if you must define me… Who knows… I could just be someone who has achieved less than he has but is still average. You do not know that and thus your argument is a little meaningless unless you asked me to list all my qualifications. All I said was I haven’t achieved as much as he has.

    But why would over achievers be an insult? It simply meant he used his knowledge at an earlier time and is using it in a greatly productive fashion. He is acheving over the general population. I’m basically calling him over achiever because it is saying he is spectacular and therefore it is ok that I am not.


  35. Athan Nyx February 23, 2013 at 22:34 #

    Sorry… Can’t edit my previous post. What I meant was is all that would be said by calling me an underachiever with him as an over achiever is that I achieve under what he does.


  36. yaser March 26, 2013 at 22:15 #

    This article is incredible.

    I hade figured this out a year or so ago, but would never dream to hear a woman say it before anybody else.

    You are doing humanity a favor.


  37. voncube March 29, 2013 at 19:31 #

    The funny thing, though, is that men ALSO make up 2/3 of the very bottom echelon, too. It seems like the overall trend, then, is that women cluster around average intelligence whereas males are more prone to extremes on either end.


  38. judgybitch March 29, 2013 at 19:34 #

    Actually, that’s not true. The distribution of men and women over the curve is pretty much identical EXCEPT in the right tail, where the extremely intelligent are.

    For every woman, there are two men.


  39. Ulf T March 31, 2013 at 07:47 #

    Good IQ tests pretty accurately isolate factors that are hereditary. The really serious tests include a battery of different tests designed to isolate traits such as general logic, numerical ability, verbal ability, short-term memory. They can offset effects of learning and domain-specific knowledge by framing questions differently, repeating problems in different clusters. I was once subjected to such a test – it took a full working day, and was extremely interesting.

    Whether Steve Jobs would have scored well on an IQ test is a topic of discussion. One estimate is that his IQ was around 160.


  40. Ulf T March 31, 2013 at 08:06 #

    Isn’t such a thing fairly difficult to disprove, though? The Scottish Mental Survey 1932 is still one of the largest studies, and shows male dominance in both the upper and lower bands.

    I have seen some abstracts claiming to eliminate the difference in the lower band, but the papers are behind paywalls, so I’ve been unable to study the strength of their conclusions. I would just like to rule out the old “absense of proof is not proof of absense”. 😉


  41. Hired Mind March 31, 2013 at 11:00 #

    The saddest part is, most men (or at least the fairly nerdy ones, like me) would dearly love to meet a super smart woman who is actually doing something productive with those smarts. I’d love to have a conversation with a date about my layman’s interest in physics, cosmology, philosophy, etc.

    Even in college it seemed like most of the women I met were just about completing the assignments, rather than true intellectual curiosity about the subject matter. It was so disheartening to meet someone in an interesting field, and then find out on the first date that she wasn’t really excited by the field, it was just a means to an end.


  42. Sherlock March 31, 2013 at 14:47 #

    Not only are there twice as many men as women above 130, the higher you get above 130 the more men there are per woman. I don`t remember the numbers exactly but I think at 145 there are eight men to every woman or something along those lines. Further up the difference increases even more.

    I`ve always noticed this difference between men and women. Lots of fairly smart girls but very, very few that meet my threshold for really smart compared to how many men meet that threshold.


  43. Ed March 31, 2013 at 20:16 #

    Have to go, but realized this and wanted to post something here before I forgot. May expand on this later. Hope it’s clear anyway. xD

    I’m reading “Thinking fast and slow”

    Had a thing on smart women being more likely to marry a man less intelligent than her (Had my doubts.)

    Reminded me of the stats you put up about men having higher var in intelligence

    Made me think about var in men and women

    Realized simple explanation for this: X chromosomes: 1 vs 2.

    Assume two groups: group A: 500 numbers normal dist mean of 100. Group B: 1000 numbers normal dist mean of 100. Randomly pair up numbers in Group B and take the mean to get 500 numbers.

    Would expect lower var in group B, right?

    BAM! => Expect higher Var in men across many things, which is true.

    Assume Two groups of 1xn matrices, each number representing an axis of ability. Each individual number in Group A’s matrices iid normal dist. Group B’s iid normal dist w/ two numbers, then average those numbers.

    Expect groups A to be more “Specialized” higher on the stuff that’s high, lower on the stuff that’s low.

    W/ division of labor specialization higher paid=> in a true meritocracy we would expect to see men higher paid than women, not because of sexism, or even culture, but because of higher pay being caused by specialization caused by higher variance caused by only having one X chromosome, ie just (clearly) biologically-based higher variance.


  44. Ed March 31, 2013 at 20:17 #

    Not sure if it submitted. Testing. Ignore this.


  45. Ed March 31, 2013 at 20:28 #

    Apparently it didn’t submit, but that’s fine. Apparenlty the fact that women have 2 X chromosomes is not the reason for lower variance.


  46. judgybitch March 31, 2013 at 20:29 #

    That is an interesting observation.

    Let me see what kind of supporting evidence I can find.


  47. judgybitch April 1, 2013 at 12:12 #


    It’s a tautology, but a useful one.


  48. LJBiFed! April 1, 2013 at 16:46 #

    She doesn’t have Asian parents, that’s why.


  49. Mark April 1, 2013 at 23:51 #

    Somewhat useful. Not remotely exhaustive but they do give a cursory and rough estimate of a person’s pattern recognition skills. Of course, they’re not as good as a person’s accomplishments at indicating intelligence (which is why they’re mostly used to measure children’s aptitude, who rarely have had the chance to accomplish anything yet); I’d rate a mathematician who discovered a new theorem or a biochemist who invented a new vaccine with an IQ of 160 as objectively smarter than this girl with one of 161; she has only yet proven that she can take the test well; it’s what you do afterward that demonstrates whether the test was truly an indicator of genuine intelligence, or if she was just a fluke.


  50. Mark April 2, 2013 at 00:30 #

    “Think I’m going to rail against that and demand that women start using their intelligence in more socially productive ways?”

    You should, or at least someone should. A person who is really naturally brilliant absolutely should be encouraged to use their brilliance in productive ways. Even more than they should be encouraged to reproduce too (intelligent people generally have intelligent children, but not always, and ‘a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush). If I met a woman who was a showgirl who could do advanced harmonic analysis, I’d be rather annoyed, as it’d be kind of a waste. This makes me think of the theme of the movie ‘Good Will Hunting.’

    Also, I disagree with your sentiment in part. I think women/girls should be encouraged every bit as much as men/boys to make use of their intelligence professionally if possible. But they have to accept the fact that they aren’t entitled to a fellowship or to recognition or success, and (in STEM fields at least) the ones who do succeed have to get comfortable with being a minority.

    I mean if someone, man or woman, can do math like this: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.0039v1.pdf , then we should definitely be giving them a grant, a nice salary, a window office, a pension plan, and as much chalk as they need. ‘Cause to me most of it just looks like assorted Greek letters and weird picture.

    Liked by 1 person

  51. Xam April 30, 2013 at 13:49 #

    Maybe hustling people for big pharma isn’t the smart way to o after all…


  52. Xam April 30, 2013 at 13:51 #

    It’s only ever been measured one way though…


  53. Exfernal May 16, 2013 at 01:28 #

    The relative locations of IQ curve peaks for men and women depend on how much weight a particular test battery assigns to spatial ability-related tests (where usually men excel) versus verbal ability-related tests (where usually women excel). Tests are construed to make both peaks as close as possible.

    If one shifts both peaks to exactly the same location, then yes, “Males have a slight but consistently wider distribution than females at both ends of the range” (from a PDF copy of “The neuroscience of human intelligence differences” IJ Deary, L Penke, W Johnson 2010).


  54. Exfernal May 16, 2013 at 01:42 #

    It’s “constructed”, not “construed”.


  55. Lif Walker June 21, 2013 at 05:12 #

    Most the information presented as fact by the Daily Mail is a load of tripe. It seems nobody there did any research at all before publishing.
    First, Einstein never took an IQ test. The 160 number is simply some unknown person’s estimation. As we do not know what methods or criteria they used, there is no reason to accept this number simply because it looks high.
    The same is true for the other ranking people on the spurious IQ list: Dickens, Darwin, and Livingstone were adults or dead when the Piaget-Simon test was introduced in 1905 to identify mentally-retarded children.


  56. Pill Scout July 24, 2013 at 17:05 #

    IQ is still a confusing concept. For one, when they say this girl’s IQ is 160 in the Cattell test, it’s basically ~130 in other scales, meaning she’s probably about as intelligent as the rest of us here.

    For some reason, being able to string together sentences means at least 125 IQ in older scales. so everyone here in the ‘sphere is probably at least 140 in the scale this girl was tested in. In my opinion it’s a “functional” IQ level, a level at which I think people become smart enough to think for themselves, which is scary considering how many people would be below that level. As we’ve noticed with average body weight in America, “average IQ” is not something to be comfortable with.

    I’d reckon that the biggest issue of high IQ people is motivating them to cultivate their talents. I don’t think there’s an “evil patriarchy” holding down high-IQ people, female or otherwise, so much as a broken system that is designed (jealously?) only to suit the needs of the lowest common denominator, rather than to cultivate the best and brightest for the sake of the greater good. That and the higher-ups don’t want too many smart people because they don’t make very good stepping stones for the entrance to their megalithic empires. lace that water with fluoride…

    Anyway, you’re not far off the mark for imploring Lauren to marry Jack. She probably figured that her most advantageous life strategy would be to pursue those stereotypically womanly things than to go all STEM. Not enough testosterone for her to care, I don’t really blame her. If women had genius IQs what would they do with that potential? But there’s not a lot of motivation for nature to grant woman with great intelligence when she only needs to fend off danger from her young, and leave all the heavy lifting to the man.

    At least that’s my theory as to why testosterone + IQ is the formula for STEM genius. A woman could have high test and this testosterone-induced STEM type genius, but she would also reach a point of looking too masculine for her own good. Perhaps this is why they say when it comes to heritability of IQ, the woman’s IQ is not as significant as the man’s IQ in relation to the potential IQ of their offspring. She carries the potential for genius in her genes, but for a female it’s not that necessary to have abstract supercomputer levels of problem-solving skills when you’re oriented toward more pragmatic needs as opposed to sitting in a dark corner pondering astronomical, borderline schizophrenic things. Creativity and conscientiousness is a nice benefit of high IQ though, so with that an ideal woman for a relationship would have a good head on her shoulders.

    By the way, fun fact: Porn star Asia Carrera is a Mensa member with an IQ of 156 or so. I think she used her intellect to rationalize her career decision as “independent and empowered.” lolzlozlz


  57. scubasteve5768 January 2, 2014 at 12:25 #

    I challenge the validity of Sharon Stone’s IQ. She lied about being part of Mensa and she retracted her claim. Afterwards she said she was part of the Mensa school, which again was proven false by Mensa.

    Unlike some of the people who has at least SAT scores and prestigious Universities to back up their claim, Sharon Stone is a self-proclaimed IQ score.


  58. pro-heretical January 15, 2014 at 17:32 #

    I’m not convinced we can rely so heavily on I.Q. measurements to accurately denote the ratio of intellect between the sexes. There are also plenty of smart men doing stupid things with their lives. It is foolish to assume that only women of high intellect can be shallow and self-serving. Most high intellect oriented men never amount too much more than employees who make money for those with business acumen and large egos. Lauren, being the smart girl she is, should marry Jack’s future boss- not him. Sometimes smart people can be so stupid, the only difference is the level of self-satisfaction.


  59. EV January 20, 2014 at 01:20 #

    Hm. Cherry picked examples are cherry picked.

    A man I know who also has an IQ of 160 is unemployed, single, and spends most of his time playing World of Warcraft.

    Perhaps IQ does little to indicate a person’s drive, work ethic, persistence, confidence or sense of responsibility? Nah…


  60. Ter January 20, 2014 at 02:03 #

    Was he displaced by affirmative action quotas? How do you know his IQ, are you playing WoW with him?


  61. caprizchka January 27, 2014 at 02:37 #

    I love Pill Scout’s reply.

    Sometimes high-IQ women become technical writers where they are treated like mushrooms–fed shit and kept in the dark. How smart is that? It seems to me that the most intelligent thing a person can do is to find something to do that makes them happy rather than being a clever handmaiden serving entrenched interests.

    <==Smarter and wiser.


  62. Ellie Grant July 9, 2014 at 19:31 #

    You obviously underestimate the power music has on society


  63. Curmudgeon September 24, 2014 at 22:43 #

    Forget IQ. The best measure of m/f differences is personality, which has at least a 75% genetic cause. Female brains are different from male brains in general but beware the outliers. Some (few) women are gifted and they can contribute to science as well as other facets of society. However, without passing on male genetic character-istics, society will eventually fail. Feminists do not understand the reason evolution invented sex. If it were not supremely important, it would not exist.


  64. Vikramaditya Sahu November 27, 2014 at 17:33 #

    Sorry to break it, but Einstein, Hawking, Gates and Sharon Stone never took IQ tests. You might find this interesting too.


    After practicing a bit I scored 154 on an online IQ test. I don’t kid myself. I have below average learning ability.



  1. IQ, Straitjackets, and the Mommy Wars « Happycrow's Eyeball Factory - February 18, 2013

    […] has a whopper of an observation today, but unfortunately draws exactly the wrong conclusion from […]


  2. Of course you can blame the victim. Who else are you going to blame? | judgybitch - February 25, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/18/her-iq-is-higher-than-einsteins-what-does-she-care-about-her-nails-… […]


  3. Feminist Housewife? I don’t think so. | judgybitch - March 20, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/18/her-iq-is-higher-than-einsteins-what-does-she-care-about-her-nails-… […]


  4. Kvinnliga genier håller sig borta från manliga områden | Yasers hörna - March 26, 2013

    […] [Her IQ is higher than Einstein’s. What does she care about? Her nails, fake tanning, and her hair… […]


  5. Men: stand up for yourselves and we WILL hate you. The new feminist war cry! | judgybitch - March 29, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/18/her-iq-is-higher-than-einsteins-what-does-she-care-about-her-nails-… […]


  6. Rocket scientist figures out that a woman’s life isn’t rocket science. A truly brilliant lady worth applauding. | judgybitch - April 1, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/18/her-iq-is-higher-than-einsteins-what-does-she-care-about-her-nails-… […]


  7. Asperger’s Syndrome: is it just another way of pathologizing creativity? And genius? Especially MALE creativity and genius? Let’s get on our tinfoil hats. | judgybitch - July 21, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/18/her-iq-is-higher-than-einsteins-what-does-she-care-about-her-nails-&#8230; […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: