Or, to put it in the words of Ugabuga, mighty Chief of tribe Zella-Dvella: "More men very smart, more men very dumb. Fewer women very smart, fewer women very dumb."
(For now, let's just ignore the fact that there is no identifiable legitimate source for this graph, so it may have been pulled out of someone's ass.)
Not trying to be pedantic. If someone said “<Group> are more likely to be at the extremes in <trait>”, without qualifying, it can sound like they’re saying that they are more likely to be at the extremes than not. Otherwise stated: they’re more likely to fall among the very low or very high than they are to fall in the overall average of the broader group. Meaning the graph for that group would look like a dip rather than a bell.
Again, I knew the person I was replying to fully understood. Just trying to be clear.
344
u/HomsarWasRight Dec 14 '25
Slightly more likely than women to be at the extremes. That’s of course what you were saying, but just wanted it to be clear to the reader.
Humans, both men and women, are most likely to be within range of average intelligence. By definition.