Vox Popoli

My most sincere apologies in the highly probable event that this is neither as interesting nor as well-written as Middlemarch:

You know, darling, for all my earnest attempts, as well as an IQ score which my mother would never allow me to know, lest I grow up with a swelled head, I am still unable to understand why you believe that IQ is a comprehensive measurement of intelligence. I can think of two reasons, neither of which reflects well on your character as I understand it: 1) that the sociocultural establishment tells you it does, and 2) that it is in your vested ego interests to believe it. I eagerly anticipate your further thoughts on the subject.

The short answer is that I do not. Given the way in which the sociocultural establishment also tells me that I am a naked ape with no inherent value who should nevertheless restrain his bestial desires because, um, just because, I think it is safe to conclude that (1) is not valid. Regarding (2), like the Lady I was not provided with any information about my IQ until I took what was then a form of IQ test at 16. Given the amount of information I had amassed by that time regarding the cognitive capacity of those around me, I was unsurprised to receive confirmation that mine was superlative according to the accepted measure.

It is ironic that parents attempt to hide such information, particularly from those most capable of gleaning it from casual observation. One can no more hide the fact of an individual’s intelligence from the intelligent than height from the tall, weight from the fat or coordination from the graceful. I’ve found that one can even sometimes spot an above-average or a sub-standard intelligence simply from a glance at an individual’s eyes.

Lethal Sangerian elitism aside, it is a greater and more injurious error for the intelligent to insist on treating the less intelligent as if they were as cognitively capable as their superiors. This is incredibly frustrating to both parties and inevitably leads to miscommunication, it is far better to accept the intellectual differences while simultaneously asserting equal human worth and then communicating in comprehensible manner.

Still, the ability to survive in the world and cognitive capacity are two completely different things. The fact that cockroaches are harder to eliminate than humans does not mean they are more intelligent, after all. And while the mere possession of cognitive capacity does not indicate the ability to use it well, or even at all, I have yet to see an individual who performs well on an IQ test be unable to master basic intellectual tasks, nor, all myths of the brilliant but incompetent test taker notwithstanding, have I ever seen anyone who has done poorly on a test revealed to be of even average intelligence.

For example, I was not shocked when my high school girlfriend scored in the 6th percentile on the SATs. Lovely girl, but not exactly cut out for rocket science.

As far as “things as intuition, co-ordination, social and emotional insight, patience, the ability to prioritize” go, they are all good and useful things, but they are not intelligence, although high intelligence does tend to encompass “the ability to integrate seemingly unrelated pieces of information”. For example, I am currently writing an article for BenBella on the connection between Richard Wagner and the video game HALO. Would anyone care to guess what that might be?

And regarding the viability of the human race as a whole, I am not sure that intelligence is necessarily as important to that as was once thought. Our breeding patterns currently appear to be selecting for other traits, and the human race was probably in less danger from being wiped out by sabre-toothed tigers and glaciers than by nuclear weapons, designer diseases and systems of governance conceived by intellectuals.

But none of this indicates that intelligence is any more fictional than athletic ability, or that IQ tests do a poorer job of quantifying the former than tape measures and stop watches do the latter. The fact that intelligence is not a virtue does not make it therefore fictional. In any event, Paul Johnson makes a convincing case that when it comes to writing, talent trumps intelligence as evinced by the curious example of Victor Hugo.

Let me know if you need me to walk you through any of this, ladies:

It is research that is guaranteed to delight men – and infuriate the women in their lives. A controversial new study has claimed that men really are more intelligent than women. The study – carried out by a man – concluded that men’s IQs are almost four points higher than women’s….

A focus on a factors such as the ability to quickly grasp a complex concept, verbal reasoning skills and creativity – some of they key ingredients of intelligence – revealed the male teenagers had IQs that were an average of 3.63 points higher. The average person has an IQ of around 100.

Had they controlled for habitual marijuana usage, no doubt the male advantage would have been another point or two larger. What’s truly frightening, of course, is the reminder that the average person has an IQ of around 100. This means that from my point of view, their cognitive ability tends to the same as that of the average unfortunate with Down’s Syndrome appears to them.

And you wonder why I despise democracy….

I await with interest all of the explanations why this study is invalid, wrong, evil and unconscionable. It’s interesting how arcane studies on the age of the universe are to be accepted unquestioningly, whereas those that deal with matters we observe every day are instantly rejected no matter how many times the same conclusion is reached. Perhaps the study is flawed, but if so, correct the flaws and let’s see how things shake out. In any case, I very much doubt that the sexes are any more identical cognitively than they are physically.

Personally, I don’t think the cognitive gap is a big deal, the emotional gap is a much more problematic one. I’ve seen far too many intelligent women say things like “I know X won’t work, but we HAVE to do SOMETHING” and too many bright men continue to stubbornly stick to a demonstrably untenable path to believe that IQ is the be all and end all of life, the universe and everything.

The Happy Feminist offers a correction:

First, he wants to quibble by stating that his suggestion of “throwing a punch” at a woman who touches him involves less force than shoving someone up against a wall. Of course, his initial suggestion was to “punch out” such a woman. I guess he is backing off his original point (the one I supposedly missed), which was clearly intended to suggest that a woman’s right to self-defense carries with it a corresponding right of men to use, in self-defense, their generally superior size and strength to inflict serious injury. If not, if he’s just talking about a weak little punch (only a tap if you will), then his point is, well, rather pointless.

And here I was under the impression that quibbling was one of the more salient aspects of the blogosphere. Regardless, it takes far less effort to throw a punch than to physically move someone against their will, as anyone who has done both well knows. (One of the sillier aspects of the throws in the latest Dead or Alive, I might add.) A simple hip-snap is all the former entails versus lunging forward with most or all of your body weight. For any man of above average strength, a single punch is sufficient to punch out a woman. It is possible, of course, that HF and I are using the term “punch out” differently, I do not refer to a continued beating of indefinite length but rather the concept of throwing strikes until the opponent is incapacitated. In my admittedly limited experience outside the ring and the dojo, one has hitherto proven to be enough.

On the other hand, HF’s criticism about her hypothetical “happening to touch” is pedantic, perhaps even quibbling, but nevertheless accurate. I therefore revise my statement to say that men should be aware that should HF not merely happen to touch them, but instead grope or unlawfully touch them, she will not object to being thrown against a wall. I thank her for the legal clarification.

And I shall endeavor to survive the disappointment of learning that HF harbors no illicit designs on my corpus and cling to the small comfort provided in her “approximately”. Alas, unhappy man, that even your rampant sensuality could not inspire a spark of desire in that frigid feminist breast!

Dr. Z. draws our attention to the debacle in progress:

I was listening to Pam Oliver’s sideline report during the Dallas game and I heard her say, “Mike Tyson was brought in to help establish the offensive philosophy.” I thought, “Wow, what a good idea! That’ll give ’em some punch.” Then I heard the rest of it. Seems that she really had said Tice, not Tyson. A shame. I liked my way better.

Forget BledsoeLeftwich. Forget the sagaretirement of Terrell OwensJimmy Smith. This is the reason the CowboysJaguars will collapse; they brought in a man who once called only 12 runs for the league’s top rushing offense in a game against one of the league’s worst rushing defenses to help establish the offensive philosophy!

Good luck, there, BillJack. You would have done better to bring in Mike Tyson.

Tom mentioned that on average, the male-female strength advantage was 5 to 3, or 1.6667. That’s based on a very general description, an old, but detailed study suggested by a commenter here has it at 1.8942. The world powerlifting records tend to support the latter, as the male record is 1,008 pounds and the female is 551 pounds, or 1.8294.

But it’s not enough to merely end the equation with strength alone, as in a physical confrontation that greater male strength is applied to a smaller female size and vice-versa. Wikipedia gives the average American male weight in 2002 as 191 pounds, while the average weight for women is 164.3, an ratio of 1.1625.

Height is generally considered an advantage due to reach, but I don’t consider it enough of one to factor into the situation, especially since taller fighters often have trouble with shorter ones who easily get inside them. Speed, however, is absolutely crucial since it not only determines who is more likely to get strikes in, but also how hard those strikes land due to the old F=MA. Due to the specific training and drug use by both male and female professionals, I think the national junior records for the 100m dash are a better comparison, the male time of 10.06 seconds is almost a full second faster than the best female time of 11.04, a ratio of 1.0974.

The fourth factor that should be incorporated, but probably can’t be, is the ability to absorb force. However, mass is certainly a part of this, so we will assume for the time being that this is factored into the weight factor.

Putting these factors together gives a result of 2.3338. This might not sound like all that much more than Tom’s original 1.6667, but consider that it is the equivalent of matching up two 5’9″ men of equal speed who each weigh 191 pounds, one whom benches 135 pounds while the other benches 315.

The Happy Feminist remains happily confused:

Then (and I don’t normally comment on this guy because he is so not worth it), we have Vox Day gloriously missing the point with this query:

However, remember that celebrating physical violence in response to unwanted physical overtures goes both ways. If Krissy has the right to “kick the ass” of a man who grabs her, so do I. . . . And it means I also have the right to punch out every woman who grabs my arms, pats my pecs or whatever… is everyone okay with that, really?

No, Vox. The gender-neutral rules of self-defense are not a license to “punch out” gropey women. Krissy did not punch anyone out. Punching someone out implies a use of force far beyond what Krissy used.

For a member of a group who cling so closely to their historical and collective grievances, this feminist demonstrates a real inability to grasp context and very recent history. First, I explicitly noted that Krissy did not beat anyone up, indeed, her failure to incapacitate her opponent was the only problem I had with her actions. Second, numerous feminist cheerleaders openly regarded her action as an ass-kicking, even though I didn’t. Hence the quotes around “kick the ass”. Third, throwing a punch requires less force than that required to shove someone against a wall, but men, be sure to note that if The Happy Feminist ever happens to touch you, she won’t complain if you toss her against the nearest wall.

But forget the question of touching and self-defense, I note that according to the Dao of the Fabulous Krissy, I have the right to “beat the holy crap” out of the Happy Feminist simply for failing to “respect me for me”. Not that I could, however, according to one of her commenters:

As for poor little Vox–judging by his picture, my wheelchair-bound grandmother could kick his ass. So it’s no wonder he feels the need to project about Krissy’s ability to fight back.

Um, okay. Whatever gets you through the night.

Okay, this bit made me laugh:

Minnesota was up 6-3 with 1:49 left in the first quarter when I glanced at my watch. It was 4:45 p.m. PT. The three boys from the Gopher State had been taking full advantage of the domestic draft specials and were already singing the “Skol, Vikings” song.

I have myself been in a California bar on a Monday night, wearing the purple and singing “Skol Vikings” following a touchdown. This alarmed a few of the 49ers fans in the vicinity, who were apparently unaware of the musical aspects of supporting a Scandihoovian sports team. My favorite, however, was getting a call in the middle of a game from the White Buffalo from Colorado or Connecticut or wherever and hearing what sounded like the entire bar singing “Vikings, Vikings” along with him. They weren’t Vikings fans, but they were so impressed to learn a) the Vikings have more than one song, and, b) WB knew all the words to both, that they insisted on learning them.

There is also, of course, “Row, Vikings” written by Denny Green his own bad leather-loving self, but it’s hopelessly lame. You can’t fully grok the intergalactic lameness until you’ve heard it while watching the Vikings cheerleaders pretending to row a longboat.

Speaking of the Vikings cheerleaders, has there ever been a bigger waste of a theme? Why they don’t have them in wolf furs, braids, iron and leather, I’ll never know.

First, let me state that I like John Scalzi and his work. I think some of those who generally share my opinion about the foolishness of women electing to engage in hostile physical interaction have gone overboard in slamming Krissy, and that many of those who disagree with me are attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole by asserting that this has anything to do with mysogyny.

Second, I don’t condone groping or any other form of unprovoked social crudity. I don’t even permit male bullying in my presence; I once bounced a very irritating man named Buzzy’s head off a brick wall when he slapped a friend of mine that he was dating in front of me. Clearly, the guy provoked the encounter and deserved the humiliation that Krissy meted out to him.

However, remember that celebrating physical violence in response to unwanted physical overtures goes both ways. If Krissy has the right to “kick the ass” of a man who grabs her, so do I. It has happened on occassion, I mean, I have a gay fan club, for Travolta’s sake! And it means I also have the right to punch out every woman who grabs my arms, pats my pecs or whatever… is everyone okay with that, really?

However, John is simply incorrect about this:

My wife is tremendously strong and more than capable of handling herself physically. My ex-girlfriend from college has a second-degree black belt in karate. I have another woman friend who was Special Forces. Any three of these women I would wager would be as capable as most men in a physical situation. Any three of them, I can confidently state, can probably kick my ass without much problem, and by height, weight and strength I am pretty much exactly the average American male.

You might say that the average woman is no match in a physical altercation with the average male, and you may be right. But in all cases? Bullshit. There are lots of women who are strong, there are lots of women who know how to defend themselves, and there are lots of women who have the will to dominate a physical situation. Lots of women are some combination of all three.

All of this is either irrelevant or largely incorrect, excluding a few rare exceptions. The comments about the black belt and special forces is simply an unfortunate lack of direct observation and experience. Black belt women only fight high-ranking men in the dojo, not because they can beat the inexperienced fighters too easily, but because they don’t want to get hurt by guys who can’t control their power. Fighting a female black belt falls somewhere in between fighting a complete beginner and a gold belt… their techniques are often quite good and their kicks are beautiful, but when you fight them it feels like they’re moving in molasses.

Seriously, I once asked a very pretty kickboxer with a black belt if she was injured, as she was taking all day to come in when she tried to attack. She was so slow that I started playing around and seeing if I could beat her jab with rear hand counters without anticipating. Not only could I do it, but it wasn’t even close.

I’d encourage John to visit a full-contact dojo or a boxing club sometime and talk to the three or four women who train seriously there. He’ll likely be surprised by their opinion on the matter, as well as their open contempt for the paper Amazons from the belt factories. At our dojo, Penthouse didn’t even fight a woman for her first three years and when she did, she left a trail of tears, black eyes, bloody noses and very short fights behind her. She was simply in shock at how easy it was, and was practically in tears herself at how much devastation she’d wrought.

The problem here with all this patronizing “oh, your wife is lucky” talk from you and others is that it generally underestimates my wife’s intelligence, which I find annoying. Krissy is very smart, and determined what the best course of action was in this particular event. It’s possible my wife was lucky; it’s rather more likely that she was intelligent and acted with thought and intent and from the knowledge that she was acting appropriately.

It may surprise some to know that I totally agree with this. John is a smart guy and I presume he’s capable of ascertaining if Krissy is too. I’m not objecting to Krissy’s successful handling of a particular situation, I’m merely attempting to dissuade those who would enthusiastically attempt to draw a general conclusion from it.

Like John Scalzi’s wife, Spacebunny was recently accosted in a bar by a drunken fool with inappropriately amorous attentions. She, too, was grabbed. Unlike Mrs. Scalzi, however, she did not feel the need to shove him up against a wall, jam her arm into his throat and give a little feminist speech: “I have had enough of you being rude and disrespectful toward women. The next time I see you, you will be polite and show respect.”

Instead, Spacebunny simply turned around and let loose with her trademark Storm Blue Icicle Stare, which was enough to inspire the same result achieved by Mrs. Scalzi’s physical attack. Unlike Mrs. Instapundit, I have no problem with the small amount of violence utilized by Mrs. Scalzi, nor do I harbor any desire to see Spacebunny match her ocular superpowers against the more pedestrian abilities of Mr. Scalzi’s wife, although I would put my money on the cold Nordic gaze of my pretty Valkyrie.

However, I do agree with Dr. Helen that the “you go, girl” cheerleading of various feminist commenters is more than a little repulsive, particularly in its vapid ignorance of the risks inherent in deciding to up the physical ante without benefit of 18-inch guns, martial training or weaponry. I don’t say this in defense of uncouth cretins who consider groping to be a form of courtship – although I will point out that this justification of violent response to unwanted contact justifies much, if not most, gay-bashing – only to say that it is unwise to increase the amount of physical force in an exchange if you are not fully prepared for it to escalate dramatically.

As my sensei always taught, do not go until you are ready to go 100 percent. Shoving someone against a wall is not sufficient as the opponent is not incapacitated and such an armbar leaves your stomach, groin and knees fully exposed. It’s merely intimidation, which only the inexperienced could possibly confuse for genuine incapacitation.

Now, perhaps Mrs. Scalzi was fortunate or perhaps she is an astute judge of male character and correctly identified a physical coward who would permit her to humiliate him. I don’t know, I was not there and I take no exception to her actions. (The silly little speech is another matter, but whatever.) I would not, however, recommend a similarly physical reaction to unwanted touching by the average woman unless the guy is in a wheelchair or something. Even then it can be risky; one of my friends was once knocked out in a nightclub brawl when a crippled gangbanger threw a brick and hit him in the back of the head.

As for the Tuff Grrrl poster, the less said the better. Someday, women will learn that you have to earn respect, you don’t simply get it for “being me”. If a feminist doesn’t respect me, (and I assume many don’t), does that give me the right to beat her? Still, while Dr. Helen is appalled, I’m mostly amused to see middle class white women adopting the “don’t diss me” attitude of the black underclass. I mean, it’s worked so well for them, after all….

By the way, Scalzi’s SF is worth reading, particularly if you enjoy the early Heinlein. Despite our numerous differences of opinion, I found I rather liked the guy when we were exchanging emails a while back.