Funny

Understand the meaning of question marks, you do not? Much to learn, little Padawan, you still have.

AFAIR the R2 is (almost) equal to rho in the Pearson correlation. I just see two variables, a linear fit from - possibly - an OLS. The small R2 is likely due to the outlier (though a single outlier by this mass of points raises my eyebrows as the MSE (or take the RSME) won’t be affected as such by a single point when there are 15’000 points centered closely around an estimate, but CCV would tell) and R2 says nothing about the p-value, which is determined by the amount of information in a system/about variables, and hence likely way below 0.05.

This relationship aka in this case correlation says pretty much nothing about real world, because IQ is (possibly) not only determined by IQ, but way many other factors. The picture is utterly simplified. It is similar to the relationship between the number of babies and the number of storks.

this graph very clearly states it's only related to men and has nothing to do with women at all. the only thing it shows is that the majority of men have average intelligence and average testosterone levels. R2=0.19 value means only 19% of the variation in testosterone levels can be explained by IQ, leaving 81% unexplained. This is a very weak relationship, bordering on statistical noise.

Absolutely right. Sorry.

His takeaway is that women are as smart as men (as in the IQ is the same) but because men have higher testosterone holding them back men are actually smarter than women. What I think he's actually trying to say is that he's a high testosterone misogynist.