Why do women have lower IQs than men?: The case for plebeian intellect in females

[Antediluvian]

It would make sense that the ACT tests would correlate with the psychometric type. As for the validity of IQ tests (which I support, at least for the most part), someone imparted a statement that seemed fairly reasonable, just because we don't know exactly why IQ tests are good measures of intellect, doesn't necessarily invalidate them as measuring tools. For the record, I'm sure they aren't flawless gauges of intellect, either.

 

[snafupants]

It would make sense that the ACT tests would correlate with the psychometric type. As for the validity of IQ tests (which I support, at least for the most part), someone imparted a statement that seemed fairly reasonable, just because we don't know exactly why IQ tests are good measures of intellect, doesn't necessarily invalidate them as measuring tools. For the record, I'm sure they aren't flawless gauges of intellect, either.

The thought experiment I have folks engage in is a ranking exercise. Almost without exception, you could place five anonymous people, who are each twenty IQ points disparate from one another (e.g., eight IQ, one hundred IQ, etc.), while withholding their actual level from the adjudicator of intelligence and they will consistently and correctly rank the five people in ascending order. Spearman, Wechsler, Kaufman, Jensen, Eysenck, Cattell and others have postulated their ideas of intelligence, and they will forgo repeating here, but I find it remarkable the degree to which this supposedly nebulous construct proves easy to identity in the real world. Moreover, the predictive and criterion validity are quite remarkable. I suppose my question to naysayers is why completely different g-loaded tests (verbal, non-verbal, analogies, numbers, etc.) yield similar scores in myriad individuals?

 

[Antediluvian]

Oh, I'm not bashing IQ testing at all, I just meant that perhaps in some vague sense they might be imperfect. I was informed that severe mental illness (which of course affects a small portion of the population) can make testing of one's innate intelligence close to impossible, as opposed to their displayed functionality. But, if someone has reached that point, it matters little if they are quite brilliant.

 

[snafupants]

Oh, I'm not bashing IQ testing at all, I just meant that perhaps in some vague sense they might be imperfect. I was informed that severe mental illness (which of course affects a small portion of the population) can make testing of one's innate intelligence close to impossible, as opposed to their displayed functionality. But, if someone has reached that point, it matters little if they are quite brilliant.

That could definitely be a problem. Most good psychologists, which is hopefully not an oxymoron yet, understand that tests are an imperfect gauge of the constructs they seek to study. This is why Classical Test Theory stipulates the difference between an observed score and a true score, and also why confidence intervals are often reported within a psychological score report. I, most often, write my comments for the person I'm addressing but also for the forum at large, so please don't take anything I say too personally. I just like to spread information sometimes.

 

[Antediluvian]

That could definitely be a problem. Most good psychologists, which is hopefully not an oxymoron yet, understand that tests are an imperfect gauge of the constructs they seek to study. This is why Classical Test Theory stipulates the difference between an observed score and a true score, and also why confidence intervals are often reported within a psychological score report. I, most often, write my comments for the person I'm addressing but also for the forum at large, so please don't take anything I say too personally.

No problem, it wasn't a matter of taking it personally, but simply wanting to clarify what I meant. As far as IQ levels being discernible to any (well, most) trained clinicians, I agree, but I think in some very odd cases (especially in case of LDs/mental illnesses, severe forms) they may be inaccurate, but this is attributable to human error, not necessarily training. For instance, I know someone who (supposedly) scored 170 on an IQ test, but was afflicted with ADHD/Dyslexia, while those are LDs and obviously not mental illnesses they can nonetheless obfuscate the evaluator's vision of that person, especially initially. My point was that I don't believe others would see that individual as intelligent as his score would suggest. Perhaps he hides it well.

Signing off for the night, and taking my addled thoughts with me

 

[snafupants]

No problem, it wasn't a matter of taking it personally, but simply wanting to clarify what I meant. As far as IQ levels being discernible to any (well, most) trained clinicians, I agree, but I think in some very odd cases (especially in case of LDs/mental illnesses, severe forms) they may be inaccurate, but this is attributable to human error, not necessarily training. For instance, I know someone who (supposedly) scored 170 on an IQ test, but was afflicted with ADHD/Dyslexia, while those are LDs and obviously not mental illnesses they can nonetheless obfuscate the evaluator's vision of that person, especially initially.

I agree. Some of Kaufman's tests (e.g., KABC-II) are heavily laden with working memory and timed subtests which could easily distort the true score of a learning disabled kid. On the Wechsler scale they have what's called the general ability index (GAI) and that would be preferable over the FSIQ when dealing with an ADHD kid who scored poorly on working memory and processing speed subtests because of the ADHD. Basically the GAI erases the impact of working memory and processing speed indexes, while retaining the g-loaded verbal and performance indexes to yield a valid IQ score. A clinician should typically only use the GAI when the deficit between, say, the verbal index and working memory index was logically caused by the ADHD or learning disability. Basically, you can't just trot out the GAI because you merely sucked on the processing speed index or whatever.

 

[kora]

High testosterone doesn't necessarily make a competitive person. A competitive personality might get a surge of testosterone when he's about to compete. A low-testosterone guy might also get depressed and less likely to compete, or do anything at all. But you can be totally amped with balls and be really humble. The most dominant and secure would actually have the least reason to need to prove it.

I get your point though

I should have been clearer, that fact is 100 per cent made up by me, my intent was to make fun of the bullshit science showing women are less intelligent by reversing it to say something about men I think its very nice of you to have been so diplomatic as to say "I get you point" I would have been far less kind haha

 

[kora]

This thread has actually intrigued me quite alot, despite the fact I was making fun of it earlier, I've done research and it seems there is a HUGE amount of polls and studies comparing IQ between the genders, all of them saying different things and in response to each other. On the whole it seem to me that wether they are arguing that women are more intelligent or that men are, they all state that the difference is relatively small, so I think (at the risk of sounding boring) we are pretty much equal...

ps:careful snafupants your atitude may not get you a girlfriend very soon, although perhaps that doesn't interest you

 

[snafupants]

This thread has actually intrigued me quite alot, despite the fact I was making fun of it earlier, I've done research and it seems there is a HUGE amount of polls and studies comparing IQ between the genders, all of them saying different things and in response to each other. On the whole it seem to me that wether they are arguing that women are more intelligent or that men are, they all state that the difference is relatively small, so I think (at the risk of sounding boring) we are pretty much equal...

ps:careful snafupants your atitude may not get you a girlfriend very soon, although perhaps that doesn't interest you

I have stated these findings numerous times already. There is a consistent and unremarkable difference between each gender's mean intelligence test scores; the difference is generally four points but sometimes less. Parsing the construct validity of this figure is difficult because tests are altered during standardization if the yielded numbers bode poorly for political correctness.

There are some subtests which historically have favored men, and some which have favored women. The most surprising finding is that women, for whatever reason, are vastly underrepresented compared to men at the extremes of the bell curve; this means there are fewer female retarded and gifted members of society. This does not mean, however, that there are not female geniuses: there are. I am speaking about averages; I, by nature of large amounts of data, must exclude individuals. For the record, and to quell any squeals of sexism, I readily admit that there are women smarter than I.

To your final point, I do all right but I certainly steer away from mentioning these findings to women and/or ethnic minorities, at least initially. To be perfectly frank, I've been ambivalent about dating for about four years, which doesn't mean I haven't dated during that time. I've just been ambivalent the whole time. Hooking up with girls is an effort for me, although I'm moderately good looking. I hooked up with an ex at a party recently and I felt pretty slimy for about a week afterward.

 

[kora]

I have stated these findings numerous times already. There is a consistent and unremarkable difference between each gender's mean intelligence test scores; the difference is generally four points but sometimes less. Parsing the construct validity of this figure is difficult because tests are altered during standardization if the yielded numbers bode poorly for political correctness.

There are some subtests which historically have favored men, and some which have favored women. The most surprising finding is that women, for whatever reason, are vastly underrepresented compared to men at the extremes of the bell curve; this means there are fewer female retarded and gifted members of society. This does not mean, however, that there are not female geniuses: there are. I am speaking about averages; I, by nature of large amounts of data, must exclude individuals. For the record, and to quell any squeals of sexism, I readily admit that there are women smarter than I.

To your final point, I do all right but I certainly steer away from mentioning these findings to women and/or ethnic minorities, at least initially. To be perfectly frank, I've been ambivalent about dating for about four years, which doesn't mean I haven't dated during that time. I've just been ambivalent the whole time. Hooking up with girls is an effort for me, although I'm moderately good looking. I hooked up with an ex at a party recently and I felt pretty slimy for about a week afterward.

Ah the slimy ex experience
Interesting...Why do you say the tests are altered if they are not politically correct? I have never seen any evidence they do this sort of thing. In that case we can't trust any of the tests because people are not showing us the correct results and this debate (which is based on the results of studies) is useless.

 

[snafupants]

Ah the slimy ex experience
Interesting...Why do you say the tests are altered if they are not politically correct? I have never seen any evidence they do this sort of thing. In that case we can't trust any of the tests because people are not showing us the correct results and this debate (which is based on the results of studies) is useless.

So slimy. She had been dating this guy for seven months before he dumped her. Or did she dump him? Who gives a shit? In the immediate wake of this dumping she decided to attend a party, as girls are wont to do. I didn't know she was there. Apparently this was one of those feminine conspiratorial planned hookups wherein the party's hostesses take supreme delight in playing Cupid and the only unwitting party is the male one. What ensued was a bloodbath. This girl was doing everything possible to elicit some notice and erect a little spark. She hugged, she sequestered, she bent over, she asked for unnecessary help. In short, every dissimulation and sexual tactic in the book was put to grand effect that night. The female sexual urge enjoyed almost a tropic exuberance that night. At one point my friend leaned over and informed me that I had some eminent ontological purpose, and that was to reciprocate and finally to consummate these gestures. My feelings the whole time were thus: all right, I know she's cute but there's nothing here. Nothing! How do I get out of this tactfully? The truth is, forum, I perished that night. She enjoyed herself immensely, giggles abounded, many beers were consumed, many endearments were made but (alas!) only one party came out a winner that night. I had, in stupendous fashion, been vanquished. This I admit without any particular rue, illusions or pride. What happened that night should be proscribed from any earthly lexicon, experience or thought. Never again should the slimy ex hookup be tolerated! Oh, I will get to the other part of your post later today.

 

[kora]

So slimy. She had been dating this guy for seven months before he dumped her. Or did she dump him? Who gives a shit? In the immediate wake of this dumping she decided to attend a party, as girls are wont to do. I didn't know she was there. Apparently this was one of those feminine conspiratorial planned hookups wherein the party's hostesses take supreme delight in playing Cupid and the only unwitting party is the male one. What ensued was a bloodbath. This girl was doing everything possible to elicit some notice and erect a little spark. She hugged, she sequestered, she bent over, she asked for unnecessary help. In short, every dissimulation and sexual tactic in the book was put to grand effect that night. The female sexual urge enjoyed almost a tropic exuberance that night. At one point my friend leaned over and informed me that I had some eminent ontological purpose, and that was to reciprocate and finally to consummate these gestures. My feelings the whole time were thus: all right, I know she's cute but there's nothing here. Nothing! How do I get out of this tactfully? The truth is, forum, I perished that night. She enjoyed herself immensely, giggles abounded, many beers were consumed, many endearments were made but (alas!) only one party came out a winner that night. I had, in stupendous fashion, been vanquished. This I admit without any particular rue, illusions or pride. What happened that night should be proscribed from any earthly lexicon, experience or thought. Never again should the slimy ex hookup be tolerated! Oh, I will get to the other part of your post later today.

I hate unsubtle flirting, it's the biggest turn-off I can think of...

 

[Antediluvian]

Well, this thread has taken a rather sharp turn

 

[kora]

Well, this thread has taken a rather sharp turn

He's just buying time to think of how to answer my point

 

[InvisibleJim]

There are two potential reasons: nature and nurture.

As females (typically) have increased chemical responses to peer group bonding and therefore a tendency not to stand out from the crowd then there is a chemical driver to being average. Evolution of chemical drivers has made it so.

The opposite effect is perceived in the males: the split of those who are intelligent versus non-intelligent and such. Standing out from the crowd and being individualist is a relatively less threatening proposition for males.

Nurture re-enforces these factors over time.

This goes a way to qualifying and of course not quantifying a larger standard deviation in males than females.

Some people are delicate little daisies after all.

QED below. Shame about the spelling. Very much tending towards the mean.

ps:careful snafupants your atitude may not get you a girlfriend very soon, although perhaps that doesn't interest you

Thank you for the insightful OP @snafupants

 

[Sanctum]

I've lived in a house full of women and i think its because women are generally concrete thinkers, everything is black and white, but this only applies to academics as far as emotional matters go its the opposite were as for male academics aren't just black and white but emotional matters are. If im not mistaken IQ test doesn't just test for knowledge you have acquired causing you to simply purge information but challenges you to think outside the box and make inferences similar to AP exams

 

[snafupants]

I've lived in a house full of women and i think its because women are generally concrete thinkers, everything is black and white, but this only applies to academics as far as emotional matters go its the opposite were as for male academics aren't just black and white but emotional matters are. If im not mistaken IQ test doesn't just test for knowledge you have acquired causing you to simply purge information but challenges you to think outside the box and make inferences similar to AP exams

Your on the right page but perhaps I should elucidate three subtly disparate yet related definitions for others. Here we go: Spearman's g (general mental ability) is one's ability to understand and manipulate complexity; g is obliquely gauged by IQ tests, which are fallible predominately because they are created by humans; and, thirdly, intelligence is a psychological construct which parallels the definition of g and according to David Wechsler is the "aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment," although some psychologists, while conceding the import of abstract reasoning, argue g is more than the foregoing definition.

Now that I have laid the conceptual framework for thinking about intelligence, we can advance to more stimulating issues. Let me go back to the closing of my opener and talk about black/white intellectual differences and the contribution of Spearman's hypothesis. Spearman basically postulated that these ethnic differences arose more sharply when the test more accurately gauged g. In other words, a test with a paltry statistical g-loading (e.g., a one-dimensional memory task) is going to be more favorable to blacks regarding their IQ inferiority to whites than a tougher, more g-loaded examination of intellectual ability.

As things currently stand, there is a fifteen point difference between black and white intelligence test scores, which, because of those three definitions I gave above, one could quibble over on grounds of construct validity. But those are the results: American blacks have historically shown an IQ score average (~IQ 85) one standard deviation above mental retardation (IQ 70) and one standard deviation below the white average (IQ 100). Essentially the rule of thumb is that the more g-loaded the measure, the greater the difference between black and white IQ scores.

The critique of these numbers is, often, something to do with cultural bias. In fact, however, when the test is culture-free and is heavily g-loaded blacks tend to widen the one standard deviation divide between whites. The crux of the debate is Spearman's hypothesis and the extent to which the test is saturated with g. There was a psychometric hoopla a few years ago over Kaufman Assessment Scale for Children (KABC) test scores: reports claimed that blacks merely had an eight point (~.5 standard deviation) difference to whites. Factor analysis later revealed that these numbers were skewed because the test was bogged down by memory tasks, which are less saturated with g compared to visuospatial tasks, which white and asians have historically performed much better than blacks on. The basic reason for this dissonance between subtest scores is that g is more present in visuospatial tasks than memory tasks. The critiques were mostly rescinded.

For those who still believe that the black/white difference can largely be attributed to cultural bias, I have one question: why do East Asians perform slightly higher than whites on American IQ tests? Seemingly the cultural and educational, overarching environmental differences, are not subsumed solely be some factor which preferentially attacks blacks and leaves asians alone. Some critics then shift gears and argue that SES brings down IQ for blacks. Let's remember two things though: SES informs IQ, and IQ informs SES; second, when the statistical analyses are computed, SES only explains one third of the standard deviation difference between blacks and whites. What explains the rest? Genetics? Something else? I would love to hear your opinions.

 

[Antediluvian]

If I recall, don't those of different socioeconomic classes score differently? I'm not entirely sure.

 

[snafupants]

If I recall, don't those of different socioeconomic classes score differently? I'm not entirely sure.

I will answer your question in the other thread which more directly deals with this issue. Hopefully this isn't a great bother. That's an interesting question though.

 

[kora]

Some people are delicate little daisies after all.

QED below. Shame about the spelling. Very much tending towards the mean.


I wasn't trying to be mean...I enjoy the OP's thoughts....

 

[Teohrn]

If I recall, don't those of different socioeconomic classes score differently? I'm not entirely sure.

Yes. Socioeconomic status and IQ correlates. Those pertaining to higher social classes score higher on avg. than those who appertain to lower social classes score lower on avg.

Some studies show that enviroment might have a lot to do with that. Some studies have shown that children from poor backgrounds that were removed from their homes had higher IQs than parents and their siblings (who weren't taken away). And other studies have shown that there's little difference between children of poor background and children of rich background in IQ; the discrepancy develops later as they continue to grow. However, there are also studies that show IQ to be largely genetic, f.e the twin-adoption studies.

Speaking of IQ and correlation, some physical attributes, such as height and looks, seem to correlate with IQ. The taller and better looking you are, the higher the IQ, not in all cases of course.

Since this is about women and IQ, I'll go more onto topic now. I've read some of this guy's articles and I found most of them interesting although I don't necessarily agree with everything. And I certainly don't agree with the explanatino this article gives; it's interesting nevertheless. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ist/200901/why-men-are-more-intelligent-women

 

[PhillyFanWA]

I can't believe none of you actually raised the biological point that in general males usually have a higher variance on everything than females. This is usually due to the fact that male mammals only have one copy of the x-chromosome and therefore are more susceptible to mutations.

 

[snafupants]

I can't believe none of you actually raised the biological point that in general males usually have a higher variance on everything than females. This is usually due to the fact that male mammals only have one copy of the x-chromosome and therefore are more susceptible to mutations.

You shouldn't believe it because the topic was broached. I can't believe it's not butter...

 

[Dragonmythos]

Society has never been kind to the minority. I find it hilarious that given your supposed greater intellect that you'd fall prey to such a folly of a stereotype.

But then again, one is making the case. There are far too many things to take into consideration and not to mention a wide arrange of external and internal factors.

 

[snafupants]

Society has never been kind to the minority. I find it hilarious that given your supposed greater intellect that you'd fall prey to such a folly of a stereotype.

But then again, one is making the case. There are far too many things to take into consideration and not to mention a wide arrange of external and internal factors.

Jews and East Asians are more of a minority than women in the United States and yet they both score slightly higher than whites on tests of cognitive ability; this trend applies for East Asians taking tests overseas and stateside which indicates the overarching driver of the difference is g rather than wonky cultural bias and language barriers. What makes Jews and East Asians less worthy of minority status than latinos and blacks, or even women, who happen to score lower than whites and males, respectively? That ethnocentric argument disintegrates when you analyze what constitutes a minority and tally their dissimilar reported scores. In other words, saying minorities score lower because they've historically been disenfranchised and subjugated by WASP culture falls apart when you notice that Jews do quite well on tests of cognitive ability; I mean, another counterargument could be that everyone has access to a library card, and most people, at least in the United States, have access to the internet and vast libraries of free, digital information. Anyway, you're basically saying that there's some cultural reason why women should score lower on culture-free tests, which I'm hard-pressed to concede, or even conceive. In closing, let me just stress that women tend to average the same as men, perhaps two to four points lower (Kaufman et al.) but the really salient difference is the tighter standard deviation that women show in relation to men; this signifies that women populate the poles of the bell curve with less frequency.

 

[Spaz]

What about abstract intelligence and creativity, which the IQ test doesn't properly gauge? You might also consider emotional intelligence (EQ) tests, which are a fairly recent invention. There may not be many women who are math geniuses, but I have seen many master female artists and writers. I think that creativity is also a type of intelligence.

Androgens and a complicated mix of hundreds of other hormones might play a big role in the way men and women use their brains. If you were to alter a man or woman's hormonal chemistry to resemble that of the opposite sex, you'd notice a big difference in their thoughts and behavior. A real test would be to see: do women given levels of androgenic hormones equivalent to a typical male (i.e. transsexuals) see an improvement in IQ? Do they see improved math skills? And how about a biological male who receives high doses of estrogen/androgen-blockers?

Another point, possibly related, is that men have more seratonin receptors in their brain than women. Also consider that men don't experience menstrual cycles. Women are sensitive to fluctuating estrogen levels, which affects seratonin receptors in the brain. Thus, it's common for women to suffer hormonal mood swings and bouts of depression, all which affects thought.

I think the proper conditions for intelligence come from an ideal chemical balance in the entire body, a peak of health so to speak. This balance is probably more natural in men, because they do not have menstrual cycles. For women, I think that hormonal changes drain mental clarity and confidence, and this may be part of the reason why women do more poorly on tests which require a stable concentration. But, I also think that problem might be corrected to an extent with healthy diet and exercise.

Another thing to think about is be the ways that men and women use their brains. The different areas of our brain can only become developed if we use them.

 

[MissQuote]

After reading nearly the whole topic the only thing I am truly disturbed about is Snafu's usage of the wrong 'Your' (should have been You're) to begin one of his posts on this page.

I have been fighting myself not to point this out, for fear of seeming petty.

pettiness isn't why it bothers me! I promise!

It just grates on my brain.

I'll try to come up with something more thoughtful to come back and offer to the discussion later.

 

[MissQuote]

What I am gathering is on average Women center in the bell curve, Blacks gravitate to the lower side of it and Asians and Jews gravitate to the the higher end.

While White males span the bell curve in a more equally dispersed manor.

Is there any information on where Jewish females or Asian females or Black females land, on average? Or are all females grouped together while males of different ethnicity's are separated to be rated? Or are all blacks, male or female, grouped together, and et cetera and all white males given their own category?

Forgive me if I missed something, it is a long detailed topic.



It seems important to understand these things in order to understand how specific the science of this all is.

without having an answer to these questions yet (because I haven't done any research nor finished writing this post in order to receive a response yet) I would speculate either white males are held separate and thus in a privileged category while other groups are all mushed up and therefore all the data is tainted and must be thrown out the window as bad science. In this case there is a need to start over with much more vigilance and strict observance to all aspects that may affect the end data.

OR

Assuming all groups have been truly separated and tested accordingly then these end results that have been described, that males cover the curve more diversely than females and that certain ethnic groups tend to gather at one end or the other, is indeed fascinating and worth further investigation.

 

[snafupants]

After reading nearly the whole topic the only thing I am truly disturbed about is Snafu's usage of the wrong 'Your' (should have been You're) to begin one of his posts on this page.

I have been fighting myself not to point this out, for fear of seeming petty.

pettiness isn't why it bothers me! I promise!

It just grates on my brain.

I'll try to come up with something more thoughtful to come back and offer to the discussion later.

Call the police.

 

[Jennywocky]

Androgens and a complicated mix of hundreds of other hormones might play a big role in the way men and women use their brains. If you were to alter a man or woman's hormonal chemistry to resemble that of the opposite sex, you'd notice a big difference in their thoughts and behavior. A real test would be to see: do women given levels of androgenic hormones equivalent to a typical male (i.e. transsexuals) see an improvement in IQ? Do they see improved math skills? And how about a biological male who receives high doses of estrogen/androgen-blockers?

Another point, possibly related, is that men have more seratonin receptors in their brain than women....

With some of these things, the hormones need to be administered at the appropriate times... Essentially, you have two separate issues going on -- "hardware" and "software" so to speak, or maybe more appropriately, the mechanics of the car vs its responsiveness to fuel and oil / consumables.

With the human body template, hormones direct development, but once certain aspect of development are accomplished, the mechanics might not change much (i.e., skeletal structure, some aspects of brain wiring, receptor quantity and type, etc.), but you can still impact functioning by by changing the fuel/chemical makeup. (Diesel vehicles don't run well on Regular, so to speak.)

[It's most obvious with preference -- a genetic male who doesn't get androgens at the right time in the womb can end up having homosexual preferences, and hitting him with androgens later in life won't make him 'straight,' it'll just make him want to have sex more.]

it's kind of difficult to do transsexual testing, since typically depression has been ongoing for years, and so you don't have a "clean test" -- any improvement in performance is clouded by the fact that depression vs the lifting of it could be the impetus for a change in functioning.

 

[MissQuote]

Call the police.

I was making fun of myself not you. It is obvious you have a decent grasp on this language.

That is however, a pretty typical response, to one pointing out another's grammatical mistakes (not that my grammar is anywhere near perfect). If it hadn't been just an oversight, but an ignorance to the proper word, being corrected generally yields responses that show complete lack of care and thoughtless annoyance with those who do care.

Sorry I insulted you. It wasn't intentional. It was a joke.

 

[Meer]

Motherfuckin' patriarchy.

 

[snafupants]

I was making fun of myself not you. It is obvious you have a decent grasp on this language.

That is however, a pretty typical response, to one pointing out another's grammatical mistakes (not that my grammar is anywhere near perfect). If it hadn't been just an oversight, but an ignorance to the proper word, being corrected generally yields responses that show complete lack of care and thoughtless annoyance with those who do care.

Sorry I insulted you. It wasn't intentional. It was a joke.

It's all good. I've had gadflies grammar nazi me in the past, so my guard was up.