The Case for Greater Male Intelligence

Professor Richard Lynn, credit Wikipedia

The Case for Greater Male Intelligence

by Dr Edward Dutton

Richard Lynn, Sex Differences in IntelligenceThe Developmental Theory, Arktos, London 2021, 131 pp, reviewed by Ed Dutton

I have known Richard Lynn since 2012, consider myself his protégé and in 2015 we co-authored Race and Sport: Evolution and Racial Differences in Sporting Ability. In his latest book, the doyen of differential psychology systematically demonstrates something that has long been obvious to most people (including women, if you know any): on average, men are more intelligent than women—by about 4 IQ points.

In a dry and dispassionate scientific style, as ever with Lynn’s books, the 91-year-old psychologist takes us on an in-depth tour of all of the available data on sex differences in intelligence, carefully explaining the findings in evolutionary terms. In essence, prior to the development of IQ tests, it was assumed that males must be more intelligent than females because males have larger brains in comparison to their size; and also have accomplished so much more. Lynn cites Charles Darwin himself in this regard: Darwin actually remarked in The Descent of Man that: “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain—whether requiring deep thought, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands”. How much longer before he (Darwin) is Cancelled?

The problem Lynn explores is that, as IQ testing developed across the twentieth century, generally using samples of school children, there were no clear differences in IQ between males and females. They appeared to have the same average IQ. This was widely accepted until, in the 1990s, Lynn began to propound the “Developmental Theory”—hence the subtitle of his new book. Lynn explored not merely IQ samples from schoolchildren, but also those from adults. In doing so, Lynn discovered something fascinating: males and females do indeed have approximately equal IQ until about the age of about sixteen. However, by early adulthood, males have a higher IQ. This is because males undergo puberty later and puberty involves a period of intense brain growth, which ultimately results in males having bigger brains—and thus higher average IQs. [Editorial note from Dr Leslie Jones: apropos sex differences in intelligence, the late Arthur Jensen once remarked to me that he “wanted to find them” but he could not!]

Lynn presents an evolutionary theory for this difference: in order to acquire females, who sexually select for status, males had to reach the top of their group’s hierarchy and attain more resources than other males, through the cognitively challenging means of solving novel problems and creating successful alliances with other males. This would have strongly selected for intelligence.

Interestingly, Lynn notes that the magnitude of sex difference in intelligence is smaller among those populations that, on average, have lower IQs, such as Sub-Saharan Africans. Lynn hypothesizes that this is because their environment’s ecology meant that the problems to be solved were less taxing, so that that intelligence was less intensely selected for. In such ecologies, social status would be more a matter of physical toughness than high intelligence. And, further, the tendency to abandon females in such “Live Fast, Die Young” environments would result in females having to be relatively more masculinized in order to survive and thus in females being relatively more intelligent.

Having demonstrated this, Lynn supports his theory with a variety of different kinds of IQ tests, before exploring sex differences in robust correlates of intelligence, presenting evolutionary reasons for why they have developed. Thus, he shows that males have faster reaction times than females and that males score higher on “General Intelligence,” the strongly genetic construct which underpins different kinds of intelligence, such as spatial, verbal and mathematical reasoning. Adult males also score higher than females in certain weak correlates of intelligence, such as general knowledge. As Lynn notes:

A likely evolutionary explanation of the male advantage
in general knowledge is that much of general knowledge
is concerned with activities of and conflicts between men,
politics, and males have more interest in these and hence
more knowledge of them.

However, on some measures of intelligence—those that more weakly correlate with General Intelligence—evolution has given females an advantage. Thus, they are more verbally fluent. Lynn says: “The likely evolutionary explanation for this is that females who produce a lot of words promote the acquisition of language in their children.” They are also considerably better than men at learning foreign languages. Lynn adds: “The likely evolutionary explanation for the female advantage in second language ability is that normally in the great apes, including evolving hominids, females were exogamous” i.e. females were more likely to be married off to neighbouring tribes.

Females were more likely to be captured and kept alive by other tribes, and to have survived their menfolk being wiped out during an invasion. A recent study presented a huge body of evidence that the Y (= male) chromosome of an ethnic group tends to be that of the most recent invader (Spaniards in the case of Hispanics) while the X (=female) chromosome is aboriginal, from the lower status group. This has been termed “Dutton’s Rule” [Exchanging Fluids, by T De Baca et al., Politics and the Life Sciences, 2020]. Second language–acquisition would improve female survival chances in these circumstances.

Females have better visual memory, probably an adaptation to foraging, and are better at spelling because they can better visualize the shapes of words. Females also have superior fine motor skills. Lynn comments: “There is no apparent evolutionary explanation for this female advantage.” However, this might be an adaptation to foraging. Conversely, males also have greater throwing accuracy, presumably due to its use in hunting.

Lynn’s theory has been criticized, notably by the late James Flynn, who is credited with having discovered the Flynn Effect (although some call it the Lynn-Flynn Effect because Lynn earlier recorded the same phenomenon). Flynn presented a meta-analysis of IQ data from university students indicating that males and females had equal IQ. However, Lynn noted that in all large and representative population samples—except Argentina, for some unknown reason—adult males in fact score higher than adult females [Sex Differences in Intelligence: Reply to Comments, by Richard Lynn, Mankind Quarterly, 2017]. University students may be a problematic sample anyway, because in some cultures the admissions process effectively discriminates in favour of female personality characteristics, such as Conscientiousness.

Sex Differences in Intelligence: The Development Theory is an extremely useful and interesting book. It was surprising, however, that it only made the briefest reference to the fact that the male IQ range is wider than the female IQ range—in other words, the male bell curve has longer tails than the female male bell curve—leading to more male geniuses but also more male criminals and vagrants. One would have expected this important difference, and the related male variability hypothesis, to merit a chapter. F. Roger Devlin made the same point in his otherwise favorable American Renaissance review.

Males are more variable because they are under higher levels of sexual selection. Humans are a polygynous species in which the females, historically, gathered around the most dominant male, as he seemingly had the best genes. Traits that are sexually selected tend to have high variability because a high mutation rate increases the probability of a beneficial mutation. The carrier of this mutation will come to dominate the gene pool. So males are operating a very risky strategy—but this makes sense because, as Lynn noted in his book Dysgenics, among hunter-gatherers only about 40% of males father any children.

Besides the male variability issue, a second criticism is stylistic. Lynn tends to write his science in a dry, scientific style. But he can write extremely engagingly, with a novelist’s ability to bring his observations to life, as he did in his autobiography Memoirs of a Dissident Psychologist, published last year. Hopefully his next scientific book will mix the two styles, rendering it more appealing to a non-academic readership. This is especially important as Lynn’s findings are now systematically suppressed in an increasingly Woke-dominated academe—which still unfortunately does ultimately impact the “educated layman.”

Recently, Lynn’s research on racial and sexual differences saw him stripped of his (purely honorific) emeritus professorship at the University of Ulster. The Woke Mob has to do this because they can’t logically fault his arguments. It’s further evidence that we’re entering a new Dark Age, in which universities are making themselves increasingly irrelevant. Intellectual guerrillas, like Lynn’s Ulster Institute (and, indeed, will become correspondingly more important.

[ has noted that as early as 2005, Lynn published an article on Sex Differences in Intelligence in The British Journal Of Psychology, which received a favourable notice here on—The Silly Sex? by Ilana Mercer, January 6, 2005, and of course negative notices in the MSM, e.g. Is this a clever thing to say about women’s IQ?, by Tony Halpin,, August 25, 2005.]

[Editorial note, this review was first published by]

Evolutionary psychologist Dr Edward Dutton is a prolific author


This entry was posted in QR Home and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Case for Greater Male Intelligence

  1. HUGO FUERST says:

    Are there racial variations in the gender difference?

  2. Sandra Cooke says:

    @ Hugo Fuerst
    This is already answered in part during this review.
    A quick check of “wiki” comments on Dr Lynn more than confirms this account of his “expulsion” from “academe” – “shit” is one of the charming descriptions of his work, which are rarely given the courtesy of examination or serious refutation.
    Yes, Darwin can expect to join Eysenck, Jensen, Fisher, Galton, Huxley, among many others.
    For short list of “cancelled” persons, see Acadamics for Academic Freedom, online.

  3. Oscar Wilson says:

    Despite minuscule exceptions the human species is divided into males and females by chromosome difference. Despite another feminist essay recently in the “woman’s weekly” known as the “New Scientist”, the biology itself is not to “some extent fluid”. It cannot be dismissed entirely as a malevolent “myth” like the “racial” variations (and see on this the recent online contributions by Razib Khan about the genome).
    The primary anatomical structures are required for the perpetuation of the species itself, though whether and how they are so utilised is optional. Secondary aspects such as hormones are less sharply dichotomized, but generally relate to successful childbirth and nurture. How societies and cultures respond to this phenomenon have varied considerably in time and space. Notwithstanding all the often contradictory feminist and transgender writing in recent years, I would still recommend Anne Moir’s “Brain Sex” (1993), and relevant chapters in Kerry Bolton’s “Perversion of Normality” (2021).

  4. David ASHTON says:

    There is a useful online Amazon review of Anne Moir’s “Why Men Don’t Iron” (2003) which lists a number of contrarian scientific anti-“feminist” studies, diamonds in a swamp.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.