Talk:Sex differences in psychology/Archive 1

Interpretations of primary sources

Citation 10, the statement that it is first quoted does not agree with the content of the study. The study finds that there is an average advantage to males on SAT of 3.63 points. It also say that the difference in g is “not large,” but “is real and non-trivial” This is a very poor interpretation of this study. I am not sure if this was a mistake or politically motivated, but it needs to be fixed. I will leave it up to your discretion for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixlanding (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, it's been fixed. --Aronoel (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Phoenixlanding, it was hard for me to understand why you wrote "During the early twentieth century, the scientific community acknowledged that cognitive differences between males and females existed. Males had a slight advantage in mean standardized test scores and more often achieved professional eminence." I couldn't seem to find the Burt & Moore source (if you have access to it, let me know) but based on the other source, the original wording is much better supported. So I've reverted it back. These passages from the Terman source were particularly relevent: "The superiority of girls over boys is so slight (amounting at most ages to only 2 to 3 points in terms of IQ) that for practical purposes it would seem negligable." "Apart from the small superiority of girls, the distribution of intelligence in the two sexes is not different. The supposed wider variability of boys is not found." And "Accordingly, our data, which for the most part agree with the results of others, at least up to age 14, does not differ materially from that of boys either as regards to the average level or the range of distributon." (pages 70-71)

The last quote suggests that these conclusions were considered the scientific consensus in this time period. --Aronoel (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Aronoel

I misread the section when it is mentioned that the curve for girls goes down below boys at age 14. I believe I did have access to the other paper when I was at the university a couple of days ago but I couldn't get into it today, I will look harder but I have to go for now. I rewrote that at a point when I was tired and after reading through both papers.

I have found something else that I think would be a good source for this article. It is a review of work on stereotype threat (we could probably have a section on that as well) but it also talks a lot about the greater amount of variance among males. http://lsr.nellco.org/upenn_wps/216/ please read through it when you get a chance. I think at this point most evidence actually does point to a greater amount of variance among males (including a nice graph we should consider putting here), and citing such old work isn't really that informative. There is that one study done in sweden that is more modern, but I believe this is should be considered an outlier for now and we should mention that most studies on variance don't agree with those results. (It is possible the swedes are just different for some reason, or it could just be an anomaly)Phoenixlanding (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I finally had some time to go in a work on the section a little more thoroughly. I have included direct quotations as much as possible to avoid accusations of misinterpretation. I haven't been able to get the pedagogy article and I am starting to doubt that I saw it before (I looked at a number of articles that day and can't remember all of them) I went ahead and made that section much more devoted to Termin's article only. I think we should make a concerted effort to find the other article and make a similar elaboration. (I will actually try to do this with most of the articles cited here if I get the chance.) I left the cite there for now just to keep the info, if we can't get direct access to it we should consider getting rid of it.

One of the problems I have is that I am not sure we can use this one article to determine the consensus opinion at the time. In fact, after looking at his proposed explanations, I am not really sure you could say he subscribed to any one idea more than the others himself. At the very least, though he mentions that contemporary work agrees with what he found, he doesn't actually tell you what that work is or where it can be found. I think we should err on the side of caution and just say that is what he claimed because that is in fact all we know.Phoenixlanding (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that article on ST. It's definitely interesting, though I'm wondering why it's labeled as a law article. Anyway, I think it's probably out of the scope of this particular article, but you should discuss it at Stereotype threat.

About your other edits: while I think you did a good job summarizing those two works from the early 20th Century, I don't really agree with having them each have their own paragraph. One of my main goals for this article is edit it down significantly and to move away from discussing individual studies or people's arguments and replace it with scientific consensus, and secondary sources and analysis. Also I have been trying to organize it to keep info on math in the math section and info on memory in the memory section, etc. The original paragraph was not supposed to be about current research or scientific consensus, but more about the history of sex and IQ. Maybe it should just be deleted entirely, since I don't know if clearly outdated research is necessary in that section, or it could be moved into the "history" section. Please let me if you think it should be deleted or moved. --Aronoel (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

When I reverted it, I also edited down from what it was originally and moved part of it to the history section. To try to address some of your concerns. One thing I have a problem with is the statement "discrimination, denied opportunities, and other social factors accounted for the fact that few women had careers in intellectual fields." Termin listed four equally possible explanations for these difference. Two are accounted for in the above statement. 1)the emotional sentiments statement from before and 2)time devoted to children that couldn't be used in professional advancement. These different explanations should be treated equally. That he mentioned 4 explanations does not suggest there was anything approaching a scientific consensus at the time. Indeed, I would say we still could not say there is a scientific consensus on this issue, it is still a very open debate. Personally I would try to steer clear of "scientific consensus" because I don't think there is one. I will revert it to my most recent edit, because it wasn't simply a reversal and it did address your concerns as well as my own. I agree that more changes are probably warranted though.

My general impression of the field right now is that the majority of the evidence suggests about a 3-5 point difference in mean scores and a higher variance among males. Most of the points where it says that there are no differences in here are actually referring to the point that 3-5 IQ points is small enough to fit within the standard deviation and thus are insignificant. I mean to go through and directly check studies that are claimed to say that there is not even that much difference to see if it is correctly cited. I suspect most will follow what I said above, but I won't change it until I have actually looked through them. Once that is done this is how I would like to see it condensed. The 3-5 thing is mentioned way to many times. It should be mentioned once. The same can be said for variance and for "no differences." All the studies that show one of these things should be added after that one sentence or paragraph. Right now the article seems really schizo and jumps back and forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixlanding (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The article obviously does need a lot of work, and I appreciate your checking of sources. Still, you can't revert my edits this many times without any discussion first. I know you are a new editor, but this kind of thing is not really acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

I appreciate that you edited down the material a little before re-adding it, but I still have objections, which I wrote about in the section at the bottom of this page. Also, if the 3-5 point difference is within standard deviation, and the researchers conclude that the results mean there are no significant differences, then that's what we have to write here. We can't add our own analysis. Regarding scientific consensus: while I agree there is a lot of controversy on this issue, we have to use secondary sources in favor of primary ones and summarize the major scientific views and consensus if it exists. We can't endlessly list and discuss primary sources and all of the ways they contradict each other.

Also, I want to note that I added the sentence about the discrimination because you had added it previously, but I am fine with removing it completely, because I think it's unnecessary. --Aronoel (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Aranoel, I liked your new edit. It was a more balanced shrinking than before. I only had two problems which I just corrected. The first was the phrasing about boys did on arithmetical reasoning vs. girls on comprehension tests. It seemed that it was written in a way that might not clearly convey how adamant termin was on how males did on math tests, while leaving the adamant phrasing in for girls. Social climate as an explanation for "absence culture" is clearly labeled as a postulation within the article. I believe this more accurately represents this in the way I have changed it. I am glad to see we are making progress! I appreciate your diligent work.Phoenixlanding (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive comments. I'm fine with your edits although I still think maybe Terman still has too much text devoted to him, especially considering that the other people in that section, even Freud, only have one sentence. But I agree that we are definitely making progress. --Aronoel (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Apa details

Resolved

I was the one who made the last two edits. I forgot to sign in, sorry about that. I rephrased the 300 study thing in the math section and also added detail from the APA source. I think we need to try really hard not to condense the detail too much when we use these sources. If you leave out too much information then an uninformed reader will not get the right impression. It is important to understand how these iq tests work in order to really understand what they say about intelligence. Obviously average scores are going to be the same if the tests are specifically designed to give the same average scores. That scores are the same is less indicative of similarities between males and females than it is a testimony that the test were well designed to achieve the goal of having men and women have the same average scores.Phoenixlanding (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that we should put the amount of information you suggest on specific studies in this article. The sources and their methodologies are available in full to anyone who wants to look at them. The studies' actual conclusions take precedence over your interpretation of what they conclude. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the major viewpoints, not discuss each individual one and in effect be its own research review paper. --Aronoel (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The APA source is unique in that it is representative of the consensus opinion of this field commissioned by the major organization of psychologists, and since you are the one who wants the scientific consensus we should try to add it with some detail. Please also try not to confuse a report and study because they are different. The part I added in was very important to understanding iq and its relation to intelligence and gender. It is hardly my interpretation that was placed in there. Most of what I put in is a direct quotation. How is that my interpretation? I am going to change it back, please allow for some discussion before deleting it again because as you have already stated that would be edit warring.Phoenixlanding (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How was my last edit "vandolism?" You may disagree with my edits but they are certainly not vandalism. I've filed a report at wp:Wikiquette_alerts --Aronoel (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is vandalism because it fits the definition. You are deleting information and it is hurting the integrity of wikipedia. The information I added is incredibly relevant to the topic and is important for people who wish to understand IQ differences to know. You accuse me of adding bias when I am using direct quotations. You are saying that the findings of the most prestigious psychology association are biased. Biased in favor of the truth maybe. This isn't only your article, try to objectively view the edits I make. If my edit matches the material than you shouldn't just wipe it out without talking to me. I agree that we should be concise, but not at the expense of accuracy. And under no circumstances should potentially misleading statements be made. If something is implied that simply isn't true, or needs to be qualified, then that necessary info needs to be added. Please try to be more civil and realize that this article deserves to be objective.Phoenixlanding (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

WikiDao wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
Specifically, is the dispute primarily about this edit at this point?
Please try to assume good faith; this does not appear to be "vandalism" but just a content dispute. That said, it is not immediately clear to me what is wrong with what Phoenixlanding is trying to add to the article in that edit. Could you expand on your objection to that change, Aronoel?
Please also mention any issues that may now be in dispute that have arisen since the 3O was requested on 6 March, and I'll try to help resolve those, too. Thanks. WikiDao ☯ 16:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. This dispute was mostly worked out later under the section here titled "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns." Since then, there's been a dispute under the section title "Undue Weight in Stereotype Threat criticism." Any input there would be really appreciated. --Aronoel (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll consider this request for a 3O closed then, but feel free to request another one at any time. Regards, WikiDao ☯ 22:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

SAT section

Problems with it:

• It is not the most up-to-date; girls have scored better on the math section in the past few years
• Much of it is unsourced
• It is not, technically, an IQ test - and we do not make clear how the SAT relates to intelligence. It is also not given as a blanket test. Eg. how do girls far on the ACT? Or A-levels in the United Kingdom?

SAT scores

Average SAT scores (recentered) by sex, 1972 - 2003. Source: [1], Table A

The SAT is a voluntary, standardised test taken by many American college applicants. It is administered by the Educational Testing Service, which keeps track of the gender of test-takers and releases SAT scores by gender. In 2001, men scored 533 and 509 in the math and verbal tests respectively, while women scored 498 and 502 respectively. These discrepancies reflect gender differences in scores since the first implementation of the SAT (see table.)

Following concerns about the persistent gender disparity in SAT scores, a newly-designed SAT was implemented as of 2005 which placed much greater emphasis on writing abilities; areas in which women have historically shown greater strength. The figures in 2006 show men scoring 505, 536 and 491 respectively in reading, math and writing, respectively, while women scored 502 in all 3 categories. [2]

Rosser (1989) claimed that there were four potential areas for sex bias through testing:

1. Test questions refer to more men than women, and women are shown in situations of lower status.
2. Test questions refer to contexts more familiar to men.
3. Test validity under-predicts women's academic capabilities and over-predicts men's.
4. Tests that under-predict women's capabilities are used to restrict their educational opportunities.

As with any standardized test, there will always be general speculation as to the accuracy of SAT scores in predicting one's general cognitive ability. The most commonly cited discrepancy is the occasional tendency for adept test takers to score very highly, while failing to demonstrate a corresponding high academic aptitude in other areas. Conversely, those who fare poorly in standardized testing commonly achieve high marks in other modalities of grading, evidence which might suggest the prescient purpose of standardized testing is decreasing. An alternative explanation is that subjective or biased grading by teachers at secondary and collegiate institutions may contrast with more objective scores retrieved through the identity-blind automated process employed by the SAT.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not enough attention is given to the higher variance of males in the SAT (as well as iq tests). That males are twice as likely as females to score in the 99th percentile in this and other tests should be specifically mentioned. A detailed explanation of what is meant by variance is also warranted. --146.6.180.121

There's no longer an SAT section, and if you would like that fact to be added please provide a good source (preferably a secondary source). Please see {WP:RS]] --Aronoel (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing - Poisoning the well - misfiled data

The "IQ Test" section of this page should contain only IQ test data and the differences in scores between men and women, with more recent data being more relevant.

The good thing about Richard Lynn's data, is he quantifies the difference and gives actual numbers derived from reputable tests ie Weschler Adult Intelligence Scales.

Studies showing little difference should ideally list the scores by sex ie if the averages are 99.5 and 100.5 etc. A "little" could mean 3 - 4 IQ points.

Poisoning the Well : Richard Lynn is controversial, he studies IQ differences between groups and believes they are genetically determined. It's worth mentioning though - that there are IQ differences between racial groups and they are not controversial - only the causation is controversial.

Iron Angel Alice didn't mention that Rushton is as well known for studying racial intelligence difference as Lynn, but didn't mention this because the tactic of Poisoning the Well is used for POV pushing and Rushton's quote supported her stance on the issue.

The edit switching from calling Lynn controversial, to calling his study controversial and mentioning he believes in IQ differences between racial groups - is still poisoning the well and ad hom.

Early 20th century Scientific consensus belongs in the history section also, though I don't think there will be much disagreement about that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaic d00d (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are proposing that we look at Lynn's data to come to our own conclusions about sex and I.Q., that would be WP:Original Research. If you are suggesting that we do not include the references to the controversy surrounding Lynn's studies on sex and I.Q., that would be negligent of us.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not original research to come to our own conclusions about sex and IQ, in fact you will come to your own conclusions about every wikipedia page you read. It's only original research if editors put their own conclusions in the article.

The IQ Test section is basically a section to list IQ test data as it pertains to sex differences (or similarities), other sections of the page can discuss implications, causations, controversy (in the sense of implications of studying IQ), history etc.

I objected to the controversial tag, because the first link spoke about the controversy the claims caused (and this would belong in another section) rather than any criticism of the study itself. However, the second reference did criticise the study, so currently I think the controversial tag is appropriate.

You have an interest in this topic, and I think you have a POV to push, but you are much more reasonable than most other people I've debated with on wikipedia ;-) Archaic d00d (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Iron Angel Alice - you are POV pushing again, but I think you might be redeemable. You happily quote Rushton when it comes to his report on the scientific consensus, that there are no sex differences in intelligence, in the early 20th century but find his recent studies unreliable and use two false reasons to do so

1. That the study was not published in a journal, the study was published in a Journal the September 2006 issue of intelligence.

2. That 80% of his references were Lynn, when actually only 6 out of about 50 were Lynn, even if 80% of the reference were Lynn it would not be relevant.

I think you should sit back and think about how you automatically attack data which is against your POV, and automatically support that which confirms your POV. This is called Confirmation Bias and everybody, particularly wikipedia editors, needs to be aware of it.

The study into opposite sex siblings intelligence score differences found a larger variation in male scores, and slight male advantage in general factor intelligence. That's the results of the study, it's not a conclusion with "could" in the sentence. When the study says "These differences could provide a partial basis for sex differences in intellectual eminence." what is meant is that this may be one factor (among others) that explain why less females achieve highly in intellectual arenas such as science, mathematics, chess, etc. I didn't include that quote in the article - so even if you do have a good reason to remove it - it was never in the article. IF it was it would belong in a section talking specifically about "sex differences in intellectual eminence.", which would also include statistical data about 'eminence by sex' and sociological explanations.Archaic d00d (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

With reference to Iron Angel Alice's changes in the Variation section, ie replacing a journal article as a source with a tabloid commentary piece, ""An all-male team of psychologists at Edinburgh University has discovered that there are twice as many males as females in the brightest two per cent of the population... There are clearly exceptions: Carol Vorderman, the television presenter, is reported to have an IQ of more than 150, whereas the national average is 100."

1. "All-male" seems to be suggesting there is bias in the study, is there any credible evidence? An appeal to bias is generally recognised as a logical fallacy.

2. This selective interpretation makes it appear that men are significantly more intelligent than women on average. The study found - from memory a diference of 0.06 standard deviations in g. Which is about 1 IQ point (which imo basically means males and females scored equally). With this quote only mentioning that men outnumber women 2 to 1 in the "brightest" 2% of the population makes it appear like the study found a difference in mean male and female iq of more like 0.33 standard deviations or 5 iq points.

3. The journal mentioned the higher variance in male scores caused males to be over represented in the top and bottom top 2% - and that's addressing the issue of variance, only talking about the "top" seems to suggest a higher mean.

4. It really is very strange to suggest that a tabloid article commenting on a study is the "SOURCE" of the study.

5. I don't know who Carol Vorderman is, but it's pretty meaningless to talk about an individual woman's IQ and the average national IQ of Britian in the Variance section of "Sex and Intelligence".

Archaic d00d (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Archaic d00d's points makes sense to me. Pete.Hurd (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Archaic d00d, it would do you very well to learn some history and culture. Cultures going back thousands of years has developed knowledge and experience for the people. You might consider these people as your 'elders', meaning you shall respect and learn from them. These people do not simply around for 200 years, but many thousands of years, don't be intimidate by The Shang Dynasty compared to 200 years your birth. Embrace is the key to knowledge, accept one great culture as the most intelligent and powerful, and you too can be consider a disciple and a student, it's possible to be accepted by the greater culture and gender. EhuangZhang (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, i had no idea that wikipedia had fortune cookies.Archaic d00d (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

EhuangZhang (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Is that all you can speak?? Even I can present the better argument in ENGLISH, not my native language!! As I say, you need to respect someone from the oldest and most knowledgeable culture in the world! If not for my country and culture, no other culture would exist! My ancestors created the things you taken for granted, such as: Paper, printing press, the compass, tofu, noodles, water clock, porcelain, suspension bridge, folding umbrella, pontoon, gunpowder, cannon, fireworks, wheels with spokes and toilet paper!! These everyday use items is how YOU can live like modern person! My country is the top country of sports! Olympics champions! 100 medals!! 51 gold!! Have you heard of most dominating sports man? 姚明?? In English, he is Yao Ming!! Please I to dare you to respond to these FACTS instead of avoid and talk about cookie!!? I told you 'Embrace is the key to knowledge'!!! Foolish man!

My first language was Hakka and Cantonese but I don't seem to have gained any of this ancient wisdom. It must pass down the genes. What a pity, obviously nature rather than nurture. Anyway despite your eminence I'm afraid that all entries in Wikipedia must follow some basic guidelines of verifiability etc rather than personal authority. On the point of intelligence differences; IQ tests nowadays have the mix of questions adjusted so there is no difference in average IQ - so it's not surprising that the measured differences in the averages are slight. One would have to use some other mix and give grounds why it is a better measure of g factor to change that. Dmcq (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

EhangZhang I'm really sorry my ancestors sold you opium. Archaic d00d (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq very good point about the tests being standardized to give men and women very similar iq scores. All we can tell from tests is the differing distribution of male and female scores. The standardization process would give us a lot of interesting information about differences in specific sub tests of mental abilities, which I think would be the most important data on this page. Archaic d00d (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You FOOLISH COOKIE MAN! How is it you can spend the time to insult my GREAT ancestors, but you cannot spend the time to reply with FACTS!! How do you like it I find your location address?? EhuangZhang (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

EhaungZhang, appeal to force, very scary. I would say that you are just using a bunch of logical fallacies to justify your arguments (appeal to antiquity, ad hom, equivocation etc) but I can't actually figure out what your point is. I guess they aren't logical fallacies if they aren't trying to prove any point at all. What is your point? What relevance does it have to sex and intelligence? Archaic d00d (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OUTING. Any attempt to find the identity of fellow editors is very much against the ethos of Wikipedia. There should be no threats to do so. Such behaviour constitutes harassment and is grounds for banning an editor. Dmcq (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that your boyfriend has come to defence of yourself! You must be very scared cookie man, very very scared! How dare you! With your white face and round eyes! You see TOO MUCH!!EhuangZhang (talk) 03:51, 2 Juneep commene 2009 (UTC)

Please keep you contributions on the talk page relevant to the article. Please omit your conjectures on the hue of the skin, the gender, the shape of the face etc of other contributors. Dmcq (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sex/Gender

Much of the difference between the sexes seems to be more dependent on the gender orientation of people rather than their sex. This is possibly because the brain can develop differently. Is there a term for 'sex of the brain' and has there been a study of intelligence in relation to gender orientation rather than sex? In fact would it be a better predictor than sex for these differences? Dmcq (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there have been some studies regarding this matter. Gender is something socially constructed, while sex is related to biology, sex may also influence your gender. The majority of people are not gender-sex conflicted, but for example transexuals tend to consider themselves of the opposite gender. MusicsColors (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ben Barres experience

I think the piece by Ben Barres should be included because it is notable and on topic. It doesn't matter that it is not a scientific study of the topic, this is an encyclopaedia not a scientific study. I believe the section did say quite clearly that it was a personal experience. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not relevant, it's an individuals impression of how he/she was treated when perceived as a male and a female. It doesn't say anything about specific differences or similarities in average cognitive abilities between the sexes.

If I was going to include an individual it would be Deirdre McCloskey, who is a well known female economist who used to be a man. But I'm not because it's OR to draw conclusions from that, and not relevant. Find some studies about intelligence, but don't find anecdotes about perceptions of scientific merit from one person's perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.145.251 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Deidre has not said anything about differences in cognitive abilities. Ben has and wrote it up in a reliable source and caused a notable controversy. It is in the controversy section not the IQ tests. Just because it is an individual rather than a general study is irrelevant to the section. What he says is that his academic work was rated differently dependent on whether he was a man or a woman. That seems pretty relevant to me. Dmcq (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not an article about academic work or how colleagues rate each other it's an article about sex and intelligence, so it's irrelevant. Secondly, even if it was this is a simple anecdote - maybe this woman was happier as a man and actually more productive? Who knows, but it's completely irrelevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.145.251 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there's going to be a meeting of minds here. I'll ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. 22:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A diff of the content removed 22:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on Barres

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. The material seems on-topic to me and sufficiently pertinent to be included in the article. If the dispute continues, other avenues of dispute resolution such as a request for comment may be pursued. — Athaenara ✉ 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a strange opinion. How does the way that a transsexual scientist perceives how there scientific merits are judged as a male or a female have any relevance on sex and intelligence? The article isn't Sex and Perception of Scientific Competence, and even if it was this evidence is anecdotal and non-empirical. Is this really the standard for relevance and reliability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.145.251 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it back for the moment. His article at Ben Barres has some other cites that may be more of the type you like as he has written on the other controversies here. This however was the start. The section this was in was controversies and men and women being rated differently for academic work seems highly relevant to sex and intelligence to me. Dmcq (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense. Ratings for academic work aren't he same thing as intelligence, and this isn't a study just an anecdote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.145.251 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you feel that way. But other people differ from you in their assessment. An editor of the article on Ben Barres must also have though it was relevant as they referred to this article in respect to the controversy. I think it is relevant because it indicates that academic people will rate equally capable men and women differently on intellectual tasks, and that this is quite widespread. Dmcq (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's now how I feel, it's the facts of the matter. What reason do these people have to justify their assessment? An individual case, reported by the individual, is extremely unreliable and weak evidence and it pertains to an irrelevant point in any respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.145.251 (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Dmcq's point is that you have every right to see things this way; others also have every right to see things their way. --Ramdrake (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

People seem to think they are entitled to their opinion, which they might be. But simply because they have an opinion, which they have not justified, does not make it equal to other people's opinion that are supported by argument. I have said how scientific competence and intelligence are not the same thing, and further than a transsexuals anecdotes aren't a reliable study into the matter. What have people said to rebut those arguments? That people might rate men and women differently at the intellectual task of scientific competence. Even if they did (and the evidence so far presented is exceedingly weak), what relevance would it have to the topic of sex and intelligence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.145.251 (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

People judge that scientific competence is a correlate with intelligence and the bit about Barres was in the section about controversies not studies. I am not saying it is reliable study because that's not the section it is in. Anyway I'm not sure what you mean by reliable here, some of those studies are rubbish in my opinion, by reliable in the context of wikipedia I normally mean that they have been published in what wikipedia calls reliable sources which is what qualifies them for inclusion. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Before seeking a third opinion or going further into dispute resolution land, shouldn't we seek consensus? David.Kane (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I did try for consensus. There was just the two of us and it was obvious there was not going to be agreement so I asked for a third opinion. The third opinion sided with me and I've now also cited another article where an editor looked like they agree too. The other party is still arguing that despite other editors disagreeing that the section should be removed. If you'd like to throw your oar in feel free to do so. Third opinion is a way of breaking a logjam with just two editors but if you'd like to contribute that would make three interested parties looking at the matter. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

my 2c, 124.149.145.251's points all seem completely reasonable. I would not expect to see anything like this Ben Barres anecdote in an article on this topic in a real encyclopedia. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think any of the other items under controversies should be there and if so why? Dmcq (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ANOTHER vote, on the Barres thing being completely irrelevant. In fact, I specifically came to this discussion page to post a topic about this. I was pleasantly surprised its already a current discussion. Having someone's personal subjective story/experience and perception of the world under an encyclopaedia is silly at best... The section is called *controversies*... the word ussually refers to some big event that got a lot of media exposure, protests etc... There are literally **billions** of anecdotal perceptive stories we could include... What justifies this story being included? The only genuine controversy under the controversy section is lawrence summers, and the danish thing to a certain degree... --AlekNovy (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's so many then let's see you produce another such story involving high achievement and written up in a reputable source, never mind one which was reported widely in newspapers and caused a storm of responses. It wasn't up to the Lawrence Summers controversy and really followed on from it but it does illustrate a different aspect. What is in question here is not notability or verifiability, the story satisfies those easily and deserves a place in wikipedia on those grounds whatever about your ideas about an encyclopaedia. What is in question is whether this is relevant to sex and intelligence. As far as I'm concerned the Lawrence Summers controversy was more over political correctness than any scientific fault in what he said. The Barres affair shows how bigotry enters into the equation, that even with the same intelligence a woman will find it difficult to achieve the same recognition as a man. Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I just read these articles too narrowly, but I would think the Summers thing belongs in a "controversy" section in an article on sex differences in mathematical ability, rather than one on sex differences in intelligence. (Clearly, the Summers controversy deserves an article on it's own, in addition to a needed article summarizing the research on sex differences in the various components of mathematical ability). It would also be possible to write a good article on sex biases in science (and here I'm thinking about sources like [3] , [4], [5]). That's what I think. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Summers was talking about greater variability in male intelligence as compared to female intelligence, and it actually did generate a fair deal of controversy. "Ability" pertains more to intelligence than "competence", further Barres is talking about his/her perceptions of how others perceive competence, while Summers was discussing the distributions of ability. Ergo Summers is much more relevant to the topic than Barres.124.149.147.44 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

See the section below. I thought Summers was right about that but it looks like the evidence is much less than conclusive. In fact I'd say for verbal ability the evidence is that the difference if any is fairly minor. For mathematical or spatial ability there may be a greater variability in mens scores but in a number of countries even there women show greater variability. The strangest bit as far as I can see countries where women have less opportunities are ones where they show more variability than men. So the basis of Summers argument looks rather flimsy on my reading so far. Remnove Barres if you must but it looks to me now as if that story is the more relevant to the actual subject even if Summers is more of a controversy. Dmcq (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to see the section below, or any other study. We aren't saying whether Summers is right or wrong, just whether his statements were relevant and notable - which they are. Barres on the other hand, isn't relevant to the topic - certainly not as a study, and not as a controversy either - since his/her statements weren't as notable and weren't about sex and intelligence, but about his/her perceptions of how others judge competence of male/female scientists.124.149.147.44 (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Summers did not mention intelligence, he said ability. On the criterion you seem to be setting that would exclude whta he said as well. The section is about related controversies, it isn't about studies. As actual information Barres experience may be more relevant to the question of differences between the sexes in intelligence measurements. I really don't see what your problem is. Dmcq (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Barres isn't relevant, and Summers is, it's already been explained that ability pertains more to intelligence in the sense of IQ than competence. The criterion of pertaining to intelligence would not exclude Summers statements, but would exclude Barres. That's obvious, it's the whole point.124.149.147.44 (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain the difference between 'ability' and 'competence' in neurobiology to me please? Why is one relevant to intelligence and the other is not? Dmcq (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

<<<

I copied here the definition of ability I copied from the first dictionary google gave me

1 a : the quality or state of being able (ability of the soil to hold water); especially : physical, mental, or legal power to perform b : competence in doing : skill

2 : natural aptitude or acquired proficiency (children whose abilities warrant higher education)

Perhaps you would like to use a different definition of ability that doesn't use the word competence? Dmcq (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder too what that comment 'Such statements, that women are undervalued, are really controversial.' has got to do with anything. Wikipedia isn't censored and this is in a controversies section and this is one reason that the article in Nature caused a controversy. Dmcq (talk)

That you are still not convinced is slightly frustrating, but it doesn't matter. The burden of proof is on the editor who creates or restores text i.e. on Dmcq.

To politely answer your question, the second definition of ability you provided contained "natural aptitude" which could refer to a g factor in intelligence. Competence on the other hand means "the quality of being competent; adequacy; possession of required skill, knowledge, qualification, or capacity: He hired her because of her competence as an accountant.". So ability can mean aptitude in the sense of g factor intelligence, while competence means reaching a required standard of skill. I hope you can see that ability is more pertinent to the discussion.

It's not a problem that the definition of one word contains the other, it doesn't mean they are perfect synonyms though it's easy to imagine a sentence where they could be used interchangeably.

Finally, it was a typo - I meant that saying women are undervalued rarely causes controversy. I don't think Barres caused anything like the stir that Summers did.124.149.147.44 (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not intend putting it back in as I can see there is now a consensus against that. As to your being polite despite your frustration that is mandated by WP:Civility and you need not mention it thank you. Dmcq (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Variability between sexes

I restored a bit saying there was greater variability amongst men after someone removed it as biased and have put on a citation needed. Looking into it it seems there are a few books supporting greater variabilitry amongst men but I found a

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3575318245761hg/

where someone had done some tests in other countries and sometimes found greater variability in women. Anyone have access to that and be able to summarize what it says or have ideas about it? Dmcq (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In Hypotheses the sentence "Girls are sometimes discouraged from studying math or science." needs citation. I'm terribly sorry i couldn't figure out how to do it myself, but here is a paper that might work: "Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement" http://www.pnas.org/content/107/5/1860 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.187.122 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Studies consistently show greater variance in the performance of men compared to that of women." Such a bold claim needs some citations. The claim is not just that one study shows this variability, but that they consistently show it, implying that the vast majority of studies have shown it. Yet not even one citation? While Dmcq above has found a citation to contradict it?

I have researched this subject a little and find that all claims of variability in men appear to point to the same source. A man named Robert Lehrke claimed that his 1972 study showed a greater variability in male subjects. However, many biologists criticize his claim, including Nance and Egel in their 1976 publication in Sex Roles One X and Four Hypotheses, Michel A. Wittig in Sex Differences in Intellectural Functioning, Anne Fausto-Sterling, and Julia Sherman. The criticism appears to be mainly that an examination of his data shows that males are only more variable on the lower end of the curve, but there is no difference between male and female ability at the top end of the curve.

I think it's time to take this claim off the page until someone finds something to support it. However, if it gets restored, it really needs to be changed to something like "Some studies find variability in men, some find variability in women and others find no difference in variability." The claim that studies are "consistently" showing greater variability in men has been demonstrated to be absolutely false and I have to say I'm getting suspicious of bias. 81.170.146.29 (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestions of new sources are always welcome. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

New York Times review of new book

Here's a link to a review of a new book about the issues discussed in this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Title Sex and intelligence or Sex and cognition?

I've been reading some of the writings of Diane F. Halpern, one of the leading researchers on the topic of this article, and several things she writes about "intelligence" as a term and about her own research suggest to me that Sex and Cognition would be a title for this article here that better fits the most reliable sources. What do you think? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. The word cognition is more general and appropriate for this article, I think. Also, would it be a good idea to merge this article with the other articles that seem to cover the same topic? I feel like this information is so spread out and disorganized. For example, these might be good candidates for a merge with Sex and cognition:

Biology of gender–specific human behavior

Sex-related differences in spatial cognition

Sex and emotion

And I think Empathizing–systemizing theory should at least have a subsection here and a link. --Aronoel (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Diane Halpern is not the only one to have studied this topic; others have specifically written about sex differences in intelligence: [6], [7], [8]. In fact, Halpern herself has written such papers as The Smarter Sex: A Critical Review of Sex Differences in Intelligence[9], Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education, and Handedness and sex differences in intelligence: Evidence from the Medical College Admission Test.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Victor, do you think that the topics of the other articles I mentioned could be included in the title Sex and Intelligence? If not, do you think there is a better term that would be more inclusive? I would support any title change that allowed more topics to be included in this article. My main concern is that there are too many overlapping articles on this subject. --Aronoel (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of those you mentioned should be merged with this one. Each of them is probably a big enough topic to warrant a separate article. The spatial cognition article is the one most closely related to this one, but it's better to have a short discussion of it here, with a link to the main article. The empathizing–systemizing theory is only tenuously connected to intelligence. There's no need to include more topics in this article. Sex differences in humans, Biology of gender–specific human behavior or some other more general article may be better for the purposes of reducing overlap, if there's a need for that.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If a person were trying to find an answer to a question about personality differences between the sexes, where would they look? Personality could be covered in intelligence, behavior, and emotion. Even a specific question about personality differences, such as whether or not there are different communication abilities between sexes, could be in all of those articles. I just see this as a big problem, since I often have to check each one to see where something specific is mentioned. It also makes it difficult to discuss, for example, the connection between emotional and logical abilities differing between the sexes. This information should be centralized since it's so closely connected and because the difference between these concepts is very subtle. Wouldn't a lot of people consider emotion to be a type of intelligence? And spatial cognition is certainly a type of intelligence. Sex differences in humans helps but it's too general. Also, none of these articles is long or very comprehensive, so what downside is there to merging them? If the subsections were to become too large, then they could be separate articles. --Aronoel (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sexists statement

This statement: "When mediating variables were controlled, gender differences tended to disappear on tests for which there was a male advantage and to magnify on tests for which there was a female advantage." is blatantly sexist and I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to have it here. 84.22.2.204 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how this is a sexist statement? After just reading the cited study ("Gender differences in cognitive abilities: The mediating role of health state and health habits, 2003"), that is what it found. "Mediating variables" were mostly health-related factors in the study, such as "education, depressive symptoms, abstainer or occasional drinker, activity level, and pulmonary function". It seems that if they were accounted for, the results changed in the described way. As it was quite a large study, doesn't it deserves to be mentioned? --Hypocryptickal (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Sex-related differences in spatial cognition to Sex and intelligence

I think these pages should be merged for these two reasons listed in wp:merge:

"Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe." I think there is significant overlap between these two topics. Everything in the article "Sex-related differences in spatial cognition" falls under the topic of "Sex and intelligence" and should be included here anyway.

"Context – If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." I think that Sex-related differences in spatial cognition definitely needs the broader context of this article since it is a complex subject with many important connections to other facts and ideas in Sex and intelligence. For example, all of the studies and tests about sex and spatial cognition have implications for all the other sex and intelligence studies and vice versa. It would be better if we could discuss it all in one place.

Additionally, Sex-related differences in spatial cognition definitely needs some attention and work, and I think the best way to improve its coverage would be by consolidating the information here where more people can find it. If someday Sex and intelligence becomes too large, then maybe separate articles for its subsections would be necessary. But for now, I don't see the advantage of having different articles for different parts of this topic. --Aronoel (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this was definitely a good idea. Keeping these topics within one article should help with the quality control and reduce the amount of redundancy. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between this article and Biology of gender-specific human behavior?

This article doesn't seem to be exclusively about aptitude, but about general psychological and brain differences. Also, Biology of gender-specific human behavior covers only psychological and brain differences. Could someone explain to me the point of having these as separate articles, and if one should be merged into the other or both merged into a new article? I just want to resolve all of the overlap issues relating to this subject. --Aronoel (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Aronoel that the articles should be merged and redirected to this page, as much of Biology of gender-specific human behavior seems to cover the same topics.--Hypocryptickal (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these are essentially the same topic and should be merged. Kaldari (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge & renaming of this article

For the same reasons that I proposed merging Biology of gender-specific human behavior and Sex-related differences in spatial cognition into this article, I think Sex and emotion needs to be merged here also. If people agree with the merge, then I also propose changing the title of this article to "Sex and psychology," or something else reflecting a broader category of topics for this article. --Aronoel (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Sex and psychology" seems very broad. Would seem to include everything from differences in aggression and mating behavior to different use of language. Could be good as an overview article but would then likely require new subarticles. Not saying that this would be a bad idea but noting that squeezing everything on this topic into one article will not work. Furthermore, there are also the articles Gender differences and Sex differences in humans that somehow should be fitted into the organization scheme.Miradre (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I agree that "Sex and Psychology" should be an overview article including the topics you mentioned. Aggression is actually already covered in this article. When the subsections become too large, they should definitely be split off into their own separate articles. I think the end result should be organized like this:

Sex differences in humans

--Sex and psychology (this article)

----Sex and communication, Sex and aggression, etc, as needed --Aronoel (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a horrible idea that has led to the article being misnamed. Where's the vote that allowed this to happen? 220.233.29.226 (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)WikiAntiHero

I don't see any consensus for this page to be merged with any other on this talk page. These changes will be removed unless such a consensus can be demonstrated.Wikiantihero (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your previous comment. All of the merging was done separately and according to the guidelines of wp:merge over several months, so there was plenty of time for any interested party to object. Very few people commented, though as you can see above, Hypockryptical strongly supported the merges. Miradre wasn't opposed to the merges and renaming but had a few concerns, which I tried to address. Victor opposed the merges a long time ago, before the official process started, but didn't continue discussion at any point, either because he was fine with them or didn't feel it was important. Though this isn't supposed to be a "vote", if it were it would look like: 2 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose. Or, since the choice not to continue discussion could be seen as approval, 4 support. --Aronoel (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

2 oppose, because I oppose it. So the conclusion is no consensus. Sex and psychology sounds like it should be about the psychology of sexual relations. While I prefer using the word "sex" to "gender", in this case it sounds misleading. More importantly sex and intelligence is as important an intelligence topic as any, the vast majority of this page pertains to it. I think sex and intelligence should have it's own page.Wikiantihero (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion was resolved and the changes were made, so you can't really retroactively oppose it. Of course, you can still try to gain consensus for any new changes. I think you make a good point that some people may be misled by the name. However, I think this can be addressed with a disambiguation notice. Also, this page will have a sexuality section (on the to-do list).

There can still be a sub-article on sex and intelligence specifically, and you are free to create that, I just think this page with a lot of interrelated discussions on psychology is still extremely necessary. --Aronoel (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was not resolved, with only 3 votes a decision would have to be unanimous for a consensus or resolution to be declared. No consensus, major changes made in error and to the detriment of the article.Wikiantihero (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

See wp:silence and Kaldari's recent comment supporting these merges above. --Aronoel (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Satoshi Kanazawa?

Checking out one of the citations related to Kanazawa, I find that he made this assertion: "men may have higher IQs than women because they are taller". I'm not even going to bother reading an attempt to back up a claim that ridiculous. Just a little more poking around and it looks like this guy is a crank with a serial inability to understand causation. Does anyone take this guy seriously? --CAVincent (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a really good point, he does seem to be pretty fringe, so I think we should just remove him from this article. --Aronoel (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is obviously that height correlates with brain size, which correlates with intelligence. That's a straight forward argument. I don't think it's up to you call people cranks. If research is peer reviewed from a psychologist from the London School of Economics so he is a reliable source.

CAVincent - are you inferring that men are taller than women because they are smarter? 220.233.29.226 (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)WikiAntiHero

Thanks for commenting, I think you're right that it's not up to us to judge the validity of his work, but I still don't think he should be included in this article. There are a lot of individual studies on sex and intelligence that reach completely different conclusions, and I haven't seen anything in secondary or tertiary sources discussing research on sex and intelligence that suggest Kanazawa's work is important. --Aronoel (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Kanazawa himself is a secondary source as well as a primary one. Your impression of secondary sources shouldn't exclude a notable (famous) researcher who'se work directly relates to the topic.220.233.29.226 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)wikiantihero

The one Kanazawa source that was in previous versions of this article was not a secondary source. --Aronoel (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent addition of material

Phoenixlanding, a lot of these additions really need to be discussed here before being added. First of all, the law article is not a scientific article and it's not an appropriate source here. Please see wp:medrs for more information on what are reliable sources. Secondly, regarding the Terman source, having two full paragraphs about his conclusions in this article is inappropriate. Can you imagine the size this article would be if every single source had two paragraphs of analysis? This article is already too long as it is. Also, it is dated from 1916, so his conclusions are not even that relevant anymore. Furthermore, the material you wish to add contains some of your own analysis, not Terman's. ("It must be noted that Terman's sample of test takers consisted of 1000 students under the age of 14. This number is significantly smaller than has been used in more current studies. In addition, this study would not be able to distinguish the differentiation of mental traits that may result from the biological development during puberty.") This violates wp:or. His source and the other back up the sentence about what the scientific consensus was in the early 20th century. More discussion based on that source is totally unnecessary. --Aronoel (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you are active on this article today, could you respond to these comments? Thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles cited from news sources are not scientific either, but these are often considered acceptable. I am not misrepresenting who Amy Wax is or what her background is. She may not be a scientist, but she is a professional scholar at a prestigious school who has spent her life studying social issues like this. She is certainly at least as qualified as the people you are defending as "feminist scientists" in the other article. The difference is how she is being represented, the way I represented her here gives readers the opportunity to make their own judgment about her qualifications. I don't try to misrepresent her as a scientist and actually went out of my way to make sure her background was known. In addition, I do not suggest the the paper is a scientific research paper. It is a review of scientific research papers, which is in fact more valid a source than a news article for example. Review articles are common in a lot of fields, including harder sciences, and they are most definitely a valid source. If a review isn't a valid source then nothing is. There is no misrepresentation in that statement. Wikipedia agrees with me according to your own link. The following quote is applicable beyond medical science.

Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in a field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies.

In this case the respected publisher is Nellco legal scholarship repository, which is a part of Penn law school (a good school).

If you want I would support the deletion of any reference to stereotype threat from this article. There isn't necessarily any reason to single out this one particular potential small impact source of gender differences when so many things have historically been proposed. If you do insist on this being here, then the magnitude of stereotype threat shouldn't be misrepresented.

I believe a separate page should be created for gender in the workplace if one doesn't already exist. I have some material prepared for it and I think most of the info from Termin could be moved to this page and we could link to it. That would allow the information to be more detailed somewhere, even if not here. As far as the consensus, the paper certainly didn't suggest any sort of consensus as far as explanations of for women in intellectual fields, he treated a number of possibilities (and different combos of those) as being equally possible. He said his results agreed with the field, but neglects to actually cite anything himself. There simply isn't enough in this one article to determine a consensus.

Have you been able to find and access the other source? If so please give me a link so we can better discuss what it does or does not support. The last we spoke on it, both of us were not able to get into it. I would definitely be willing to discuss how appropriate it is once I get a look at it.

I will go through and delete personal analysis Phoenixlanding (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There are different standards of sources for biomedical articles. Amy Wax may be a legal expert but I don't see how she has expertise in anything science-related. The sources for stereotype threat do meet the criteria for wp:medrs and there is no justification for removing them.

A gender and workplace article could be a good idea, though there is already the article Women in the workforce. However, I am still concerned about using Termin for any content that's not about historical facts. His work is just too outdated.

I still don't have the other source, I didn't put it there. So you would be helping a lot by checking it. But I suggest that in your review you only focus on the one sentence here it's supposed to support, because like the Termin source, it's very outdated. --Aronoel (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, I have shown you precisely why this source is relevant. An objective viewer would agree with me that the source meets the right criteria. It is clearly a scholarly work that has come out of an eminent university and meets appropriate standards. You recently added the book at the top of the section that is basically an editorial as evidence for stereotypes affecting performance. This book does not meet as high of standards as this source. At this point I am starting to think you don't want it here because it disagrees with your opinion as a feminist. Most of the feminists from the other article have no background in biology and yet you still seem to think they are qualified enough to be cited on biological essentialism. I am not willing to budge on this point. You can't have double standards on what is and is not an acceptable source. Sources that support feminist ideology are not more relevant than sources that disagree with it.

Thanks for showing me that article.

we agree that second source is problematic. If neither one of us ends up finding it we should get rid of it. It is old enough that it wouldn't be a big loss.Phoenixlanding (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that I'm not being objective. However, I would really appreciate it if you would still try to assume good faith. I still don't see how a law journal article somehow has better scientific credentials than secondary publications by actual psychologists such as Cordelia Fine and James C. Kaufman. I don't know which other sources you are referring to, since those are the two sources I added to the lead. I know that you feel like the law article is a good analysis and that's fine, but if it was such an important and scientific criticism of stereotype threat, then I think it would be easy to find an article like that written by a scientist in a scientific journal. Regarding the biological essentialism comments, if you're referring to disputes on the article Feminism, I didn't add or discuss anything about qualifications there, and anyway that discussion belongs on that talk page, not here.

Regarding the second source, it definitely does need to be verified but unfortunately our not having access doesn't justify its removal, see wp:verifiability: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." --Aronoel (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Beyond being a qualified academic, Amy's paper is a good paper and it can stand on its own and can withstand direct scrutiny. None of these articles are in direct disagreement with each other. None of the statements in the articles you put in are contradicted in the Amy Wax article. The problem is that in your articles these professors do not consider the question of how big of a problem stereotype threat is. Is it a big problem, a small problem, a medium? Whatever their expertise, if they don't talk about it (and they don't) we are kind of left in the dark. Many reasons have been proposed as explanations for differences in performance between gender including forms of discrimination other than ST. How do we know that ST plays more than 1% of a role in differences that exist? If it only plays a 1% role, why are we mentioning it in favor of any other explanation? It is misleading to mention stereotype threat without this qualification because it gives the implication that ST is the largest contributor to differences, when that probably isn't the case.

In addition, this is another example of a section that isn't sure what it wants to say. The next paragraph then goes on to assert that differences in math tests between men and women are not much different and talks about the greater diligence of women in math courses. If stereotype threat is true, has a large impact, and specifically impacts women then this implies that if women and men perform equally then women must be innately better than men at math. This is definitely not the case. I personally view that sort of implication as a subtle form of misandry.

Lastly, even the sentence you put in is misleading "The impact of stereotype threat has been confirmed in over 300 peer-reviewed journal articles." This is not what they say. They say there have been 300 studies published on the subject. They don't say that all of the studies confirmed ST. They don't even say most did. This is kind of a striking omission. (Not talking about magnitude is also pretty bad) I think this makes their motivation at least a little suspect. This is important information that should have been tracked down and included in their article. Since they neglected to, the Amy Wax article can provide the missing details.Phoenixlanding (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually thought the source said "confirmed," so I admit that was a mistake, and thank you for correcting that. I don't think this reflects dishonesty on the part of the source because they continue to discuss individual studies and what they specifically found. My next comments may be leading to a discussion of our personal opinions, but I disagree that the stereotype threat info is contradictory or implies that women are innately better than men. Young girls who have not had a lot of exposure to stereotype perform equally well on math tests, and later, differences are reported in SAT performance and in females 13+ according to Benbow's studies. Lack of confidence, which could be associated with stereotype threat, could explain an overcompensation in math class by females. Lastly, some studies that report no math ability difference could be using test situations that minimize streotype threat, so it may not be playing a role there. This is all speculation and we have to only report what the sources themselves actually say, but because these are all possibilities, I don't feel like you can necessarily conclude that the section implies what you say it implies. Maybe to make it clearer I can go back and read some of the sources and see what situations they specifically discuss. Also, I'll try to see if I can find a discussion of how much exactly stereotype threat is a factor in performance. I don't know if I can get to it this weekend, but I think I can help make this a more acceptable section to you. --Aronoel (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sex and psychology

I have been having a disagreement with an editor over edits regarding a source that I don't think meets wp:rs, and two paragraphs that I believe are not relevant and contain original research. (See Talk sections titled "Interpretations of primary sources" and "Recent addition of material.") This disagreement has started to get a little personal and it's been frustrating, so I'm worried about maintaining my objectivity. If a neutral third party could weigh in, it would be really appreciated.-Aronoel (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

About your third opinion request - Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed from the list of pending requests at the Third Opinion Project page since you have moved on to a higher form of dispute resolution. If you get no response to your RFP request, feel free to either relist it at the Third Opinion Project or move on to some yet-higher form of dispute resolution. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to try to get more editors to review this disagreement and to help resolve this standstill, I've posted about the Amy Wax source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Phoenixlanding, please post your views (only on the Wax source) there and hopefully more editors will weigh in. --Aronoel (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

donePhoenixlanding (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see what this argument is about, or has it been resolved now? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be related to the discussion immediately above this one as well as the section below titled "Undue Weight in Stereotype Threat criticism". In particular, it involves the addition of the following two sentences after the first paragraph of the Mathematics section: "However, in a review of stereotype threat studies, law professor Amy Wax argues that while literature supports the existence of stereotype threat during study conditions, the literature also suggests the impact of stereotype threat in tests is small in magnitude. In addition she criticizes most of the studies for having improper controls, small sample sizes, and suggests that stereotype threat is unsatisfactory in explaining the over-representation of males in the top 99th percentile." Aronoel contends that an article by a law professor is not a reliable source to use in a psychology article, while Phoenixlanding contends that it is since it is a scholarly article about stereotype threat. I believe there was a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, but I don't know what the result was. Perhaps the two parties can elaborate. Kaldari (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that, in the soft sciences like psychology, there is any clear distinction between right and wrong or mainstream and fringe, thus I believe it is correct that a range of views is represented here without giving any undue weight and without personal opinion or OR. Therefore compromise is the way forward here rather than fighting to win.

In the case of the Amy Wax argument I suggest that the volume of text in the article on the subject should reflect the general prominence of her views amongst psychologists. Maybe the solution is simply to keep her views in but reduce the text on it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The result of the noticeboard discussion wasn't very clear either way, people took strong positions on both sides. When the discussion returned here, it seemed to be mostly resolved under "Undue Weight in Stereotype Threat criticism." Although I still think Amy Wax is not an appropriate source for this subject, I think if her views are to be included on Wikipedia they should be in the article Stereotype threat. There is really only a sentence here about stereotype threat, and it doesn't even contradict her analysis of it. --Aronoel (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

book on human sexuality as source for intellegence section

Here is the source:

Baumeister, Roy F. (2001). Social psychology and human sexuality: essential readings. Psychology Press. ISBN 1841690198, 9781841690193.

This source does not directly deal with gender differences in intelligence or even general differences in psychology between sexes. The focus of this book is human sexuality. The claim that no gender differences exist in intelligence in this article is one of several repetitive statements and the other sources cited are more on topic. I suggest deleting this statement and source and relying on the other sources available. If it dealt more directly with this claim I would suggest consolidation with the other studies dealing with this, but I don't think it deals directly enough to warrant it being cited in addition to better sources.Phoenixlanding (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Social psychology and human sexuality seems like a subject very closely related to psychology differences between the sexes and Roy F. Baumeister is an expert in the field of social psychology, so I don't support removing this source. Also, why would you want to delete the statement if you admit yourself that the other sources available support it? --Aronoel (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is relevant to the article as a whole, but not to the section on intelligence. One thing we might consider is having a separate section on sexuality and include this source there. It would be very relevant to that topic. Actually, I would say that this is a section that needs to be added to this article.

I didn't say delete the statement, I said consolidate and delete a less relevant source. I already mentioned consolidating several statements that are repeated several times and then including all the sources supporting the statement after it. (BTW, when mentioned this before you did move the 3-5 iq points different into one paragraph. I don't think you deleted any sources, but I want to be sure none were deleted at that point) This book isn't about intelligence. Is there more in this whole book than a couple of paragraphs on the subject? I don't oppose a citation from Roy F. Baumeister. In fact it would be great if we could get a source from him that was more on topic, or else the sources he is referring to in his book. I am just saying it is better to rely on stuff more on topic when possible, if this was the only source that made the statement I would agree that we should keep it in, but since it isn't lets get it out of the intelligence section.Phoenixlanding (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're saying. If you want to consolidate some information and retain that sentence, I think that would be a positive improvement. The sexuality section is something that definitely needs to be added, it's already on the to do list above. --Aronoel (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename to 'Gender and psychology'

'Sex' might be a more common term, but am I wrong in assuming we really mean 'gender' here? -- Avanu (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for commenting here, this article really could use more editors. The word "sex" was chosen over "gender" because this article is supposed to be about biological sex, and the term gender often applies to non-biological gender identity. --Aronoel (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The current name seems more accurate as we are specifically referring to biological sex. Kaldari (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Would be than "Biological sex and psychology" an overkill? I went to the talk page because I had the same doubt as Avanu. That would, at least to me, clarify the content of the article. --Dia^ (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:TITLE suggests using the shortest title that precisely identifies the subject. I think the current title works for that, although I see how it could be a bit confusing to some people. Kaldari (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that at the top of the article it says: This article is about psychology and the male and female biological sexes. For information about human sexual perceptions, see Human sexuality. Maybe if anyone comes to this page thinking it is about sex(gender) and psychology, we can also add something like" For information about gender and psychology, see Masculine psychology or Feminine psychology. What do you think?DaffyBridge (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns

Resolved

I noticed that Phoenixlanding recently reverted changes to a paragraph related to the study "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns". After reading through the study myself, I think that the additions made by Aronoel were important as they reflect the overall conclusions of the paper. However, the point raised in Phoenixlanding's version of the paragraph is also useful. I think both points can and should exist in the Intelligence section. I think Aronoel's content should exist with the other sources that assert no difference in gender IQ performance, as this seems to be a significant point of view in studies on this issue and deserves a paragraph completely dedicated to this idea. The point made in Phoenixlanding's version, about the "constructed equality" problem, should be moved to the section discussing limiting factors and deficiencies of such studies - the section beginning with "Hyde and Metz...". That should provide a better overall organization of the material and allow both points to be presented within the article. Kaldari (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on this dispute. My problem with Phoenixlanding's additions is that they imply that the test construction is problematic and that there isn't enough evidence for conclusions about sex differences in IQ, which I think is an original analysis. The study itself doesn't seem to suggest that the constructed equality problem is an obstacle for their pretty clear conclusion: "Although there are no important sex differences in overall intelligence test scores, substantial differences do appear for specific abilities." Maybe they had enough additional evidence besides constructed equality IQ tests, and/or were able to adjust for any imbalances they found, making the test construction question a non-issue. However, if other editors do feel that the study suggests that the constructed equality problem actually introduced doubt into their conclusions, I am totally fine with Kaldari's suggested solution. --Aronoel (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely a danger of getting into original research here. And the Phoenixlanding version does seem to push the issue further than the actual study did. The study does go to some lengths, however, to emphasize that the conclusions they reach are of limited scope due to various factors. Perhaps there are other sources that could be combined with the quote from the study to present the "constructed equality" idea in a way that isn't original research. This would be a good opportunity to practice "writing for the opponent", in my opinion. If, however, no other source can be found which mentions the idea that IQ tests are specifically constructed to be gender balanced, then perhaps it should be removed altogether per WP:UNDUE. The fact that the idea is mentioned in such a prominent study, however, makes me suspect that other sources for the claim also exist. Regardless, I don't think that such a cherry-picked quote should be used to represent the conclusions of the study at the beginning of the discussion, as the constructed equality idea is not even mentioned in the study's own conclusions. For the purpose of summarizing the study, your version (or something similar) is better to use. Kaldari (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, I'll see what else I can find anything else on the constructed equality issue. --Aronoel (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. I feel that the constructed aspect should be mentioned and being in another section is probably fine.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I found a corroborating source for the "constructed equality" claim, so both quotations are now integrated into the section. Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your addition was really good, especially because it mentioned some of the reasons behind the construction. I was trying to put together some sources myself but this is much better. I will just add them behind yours as additional sources. --Aronoel (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

wordy math

I have tried to reduce the length of the first paragraph in mathematics without loosing any info as was asked. I propose a compromise by deleting the reference to the 300 study source and the second criticism study to further decrease the length.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem with the 300 study source? --Aronoel (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem another editor suggested to make it less wordy. That was my suggestion. I already did some improvement.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue Weight in Stereotype Threat criticism

Wp:undue instructs:"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Unless someone can demonstrate that skeptical views of Stereotype Threat are represented more in scientific literature than is currently indicated, especially in reliable secondary sources, I suggest this compromise: "Stereotype threat has been shown to affect performance and confidence in mathematics of both males and females, though the degree of this effect in real-life settings has been debated," or something to that effect. --Aronoel (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this compromise. Everything in the article about stereotype threat criticism should be deleted because none of the sources are credible. One source is not even about sex differences, and the other is a law article. So it does not make sense that they are in a science article about sex and psychology. This article is not well written. The newspaper article in the History section is does not add anything useful, and there is so much information here without proper sources. I've tried to clean up this article a little myself. Katalirob (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)katalirob

Thanks for commenting and trying to help improve this article. The law source had a lengthy discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (see above), though no consensus emerged except that it is a credible source for Amy Wax's own views. However, I agree about the source on race and ST, because it doesn't seem relevant to this article. And the undue weight issue still remains. Both sources may still, however, be useful at Stereotype threat and Race and intelligence. I am going to remove both sources for now until due weight can be demonstrated or consensus can be reached on their inclusion.

Also, I want to point out that neither disputed source disagrees with the current sentence saying that stereotype threat has been shown to affect test scores. --Aronoel (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Katalirob, please take the time to review the discussion over the credibility of the source on the reliability notice board because I would rather not reiterate them here. The other article has a similar criticism of stereotype threat to Amy Wax's, which shows it is not unique. Stereotype threat itself is not the only thing that has been proposed for differences between tests. If we are to mention that without the proper criticism, then I should start collecting every possible explanation and list them in this article as well. Which I suppose I will do if you insist on getting rid of the criticism.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't actually list every possible explanation you can come up with on this page, because you shouldn't disprupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Also, the obvious unconstructiveness of that is a good example of why the standard of due weight is important for Wikipedia, because we shouldn't have confusing clutter or misrepresent the significance of certain views. --Aronoel (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this text:

In a review of stereotype threat studies, law professor and neurologist Amy Wax argues that while literature supports the existence of stereotype threat during study conditions, the literature also suggests the impact of stereotype threat in tests is small in magnitude and is unsatisfactory in explaining over-representation of males in the top 99th percentile.^[1] Other psychologists have made similar criticisms of stereotype threat.^[2]

[1] http://lsr.nellco.org/upenn_wps/216/

[2] Sackett PR, Hardison CM, Cullen MJ (January 2004). "On interpreting stereotype threat as accounting for African American-White differences on cognitive tests" (PDF). Am Psychol 59 (1): 7–13. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.7. PMID 14736315. http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_2004.pdf

belongs in the Stereotype threat article, not here. Alternatively, there should be an entire section on stereotype threat in this article with expanded sourced discussion of the issue as it relates to the topic of this article overall. But it seems unnecessarily distracting to just tack it on to the end of that particular paragraph like that. WikiDao ☯ 18:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree mostly, except that I don't know if there is enough here for a full section on Stereotype threat. --Aronoel (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New section on gender identity and socialization

I added a new section at the beginning on gender identity and socialization. I think it's important to have this section first because it relates to all the following sections.. in each case the question is typically one of social factors versus in born ones. I think we should talk about overall research on socialization versus genes before we get into the specifics. Of course there's a lot more to add, and there's a lot of research indicating the influences of gender roles. Let's build up this section together.--Babank (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see how this material would be useful in the Gender identity article, but it seems rather out of place here, especially added to the beginning of the article with no context given of the broader nature vs. nurture debate. Perhaps it would be more appropriate after the 'Physical brain parameters' section. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think we should change "all of the subjects had male-typical attitudes and interests" to "all of the subjects had at least moderately male-typical attitudes and interests" so that we aren't overstating the study's conclusions. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with changing the language as you suggest. I disagree with your suggestion that the sex reassignment studies belong in the brain section, for two reasons. First, the sex reassignment studies are not "Physical brain parameters", the study is purely behavioral (based on gender identity and gender-specific behaviors). Second, the question of nature versus nurture (specifically socialization), as well as the question of gender identity in relation to gender dimorphic traits applies throughout the entire article, and therefore makes sense at the beginning.--Babank (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting to make it part of the "Physical brain parameters" section, just to move it closer to that section, since they are related - both deal with the idea that certain sex-specific traits are biologically determined. Really though, the arguments about the causes of various types of sex-specific phychological traits should probably appear within the sections on those traits. For example, the section on "Emotions" might mention both sex hormones and social conditioning, while the section on "Spatial abilities" might mention differences in certain areas of the brain. Having a sweeping "Gender identity and socialization" section isn't really that helpful, as obviously different factors influence different psychological traits. (For example, women buy more things that are pink because of a 20th century marketing trend, not because their brains are wired to like pink.) But I do think it is important to discuss theories of causality within each section. The trick here is not to over-simplify the issues, even though it would be easier to just present one monolithic nature vs. nurture debate. In reality, there are lots of different debates in lots of different areas. Sorry if I'm partially contradicting my earlier thoughts :) Kaldari (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can definitely see your concern that we make a sweeping decisive statement at the outset of the article. However, it wasn't my intent to stake a single claim at the very beginning, rather to start a section which would give a good introduction to socialization vs genes, etc. That gender identity is mainly nature doesn't imply that wearing pink is nature, and we can definitely incorporate such other views, criticisms of what I put etc. I've added a {{Unbalanced-section}} template in line with what you've pointed out here. With that said, the reference I added doesn't deal with emotions, but rather with gender identity and socialization (which in turn relates to everything else in the article). So it wouldn't make sense to move it down into a different section.--Babank (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, hopefully the section can be expanded in the future so that it is more balanced and nuanced. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I'll actually add some studies from an environmentalist perspective. There's some strong evidence of gender differentiation being environmentally mediated. I have no horse in this race other than getting the mainstream psychology views on here.

By the way, regarding your pink example, one could argue that nature has us categorize ourselves as a certain gender based on our genetic propensities, and then we take on the average traits of that gender to some extent. Hence, girls wearing pink in the 20th century could be in some sense natural, while at the same time due to historical accident. Many traits are like this-- variation within a generation is genetic, but between generations is environmental. Just thought I'd throw that in there for clarity on the biological position.--Babank (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly a valid point. Another complication is a topic that is receiving much attention in evolutionary anthropology currently: how cultural changes feed back into evolution. In other words, if society decides that women should like pink, women may actually evolve a genetic predisposition to pink even if none existed previously. So it can be something of a chicken and egg situation (and very hard to isolate the two factors experimentally). I'm mainly wary of people pushing the simplistic POV that all gender differences are purely biological and immutable (and thus male domination is justified and inevitable). We've had some problems with that type of POV pushing in the past, ala Steven Goldberg acolytes. Kaldari (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

For sure. I'm going to be adding some stuff on certain environmental factors that mediate the strength of gender-roled behavior. For example, I recall some studies showing that girls at all girl-schools are less gender differentiated, because there are no boys to contrast themselves with.. E.g. one study found that they're better at sports when they're playing each other, but they intentionally play worse when boys are present.

One of the surprising findings from the psychology research is how much kids gender socialize themselves in relation to their peer group and society at large, rather than following their parents. Kids are way more sexist than parents, generally.. they'll insist on rigid dichotomies like "girls can't be doctors", even if their mom is a doctor. At the extreme, there's research on kids raised in hippie communes who insist on following gender roles even when actively discouraged by parents.

Lastly there's the obvious trend which shows up in the research of decreasing gender differentiation over time. So, there's a lot of environmental stuff to talk about.

Oh, and the gene-culture coevolution you mentioned would actually warrant a section called "Evolutionary theories", would you agree?--Babank (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although I wouldn't say it's a high priority. The article just underwent several merges and currently lacks any sort of systematic organization. I'd like to see more high level work to cover the basics before we get too deep into the abyss of causality. Kaldari (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The section "problems with research" could be a good section to combine with this new one. As Kaldari said previously, right now the different theories of causality are supposed to be within each section, but having a separate section in addition could be a good idea. Also, environmental theories would make another good section, although it is discussed a little in "Hypotheses." --Aronoel (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would generally discourage seperating discussion of genetic and environmental theories, both because the two often mix and interact, and also because it makes for a more disparate article (an extreme to this can be seen at twin study).

Also, I renamed Hypotheses to Theories, because a theory is the proper term for an idea which explains many data points under one more abstract header.--Babank (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. --Aronoel (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself/assumes that readers are based in the US

One sentence reads "Studies that report variations in IQ between males and females find differences between 3-5 IQ points. However, males show higher variance on scores." (this statement is also unreferenced) whilst another sentence in a later paragraph reads "...which gender shows the greatest variance differs between countries: in some countries, such as the Netherlands, girls tend to have a greater variance than boys, whereas in others, such as the US, boys have the greater variance." I'm not confident fixing this myself, but someone else might want to? 58.169.135.253 (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to fix this, thanks for pointing it out. --Aronoel (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In the "Emotion" subsection, concerning the information about crying differences between males and females

In "Emotion", two sentences, "Women are known to have..." and the last in the section, "By age eighteen..." both concern themselves with crying differences between the two sexes. I started merging the two, but on second thought, wouldn't it be better to move this to a more relevant article? Perhaps we could leave it here and connect it properly to the subject (e.g. find and cite a source that discusses the effect of this increased crying frequency on social stereotypes of emotion...) On a semi-unrelated side note, the last sentence's source direct copy-paste sourced an unnamed NYT article source, and the reference needs to be changed to the original data to avoid confusing readers who want the true source of the women-cry-four-times-more statistic. Whew! Xulsrom (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's move it until it can be properly connected. I'll try and fix the source problem you mentioned.--Aronoel (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

History

I wonder, in the history section are listed only people that though women were inferior to men, but in same periods there has been women like Catherine the Great or Queen Victoria, just to name the biggest. Someone must have pointed that out at the time. Has anyone got information on the subject? --Dia^ (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Recently, an article was created with the title Gender Differences in Human Memory. The article appeared to be largely original research and a significant fork on the content in this article. I proposed a merge of that article to here, but since the article did not use inline citations, but only listed a series of sources, it is impossible for me, as someone not involved in the field of psychology or memory, to know what facts are citable and which are OR. Therefore, I have merely redirected the page here. I offer the sources that existed at that page as a starting point for interested parties to expand on the Memory section of this page with any facts from these sources that might be relevant:

• Bloise, S.M.; Johnson, M.K. (2007). "Memory for emotional and neutral information: gender and individual differences in emotional sensitivity". Memory. 15: 192–204.
• Hamann, S. (2001). "Cognitive and neural mechanisms of emotional memory". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 5: 394–400.
• Herlitz, L.; Nilsson, L.G.; Backman (1997). "Gender differences in episodic memory". Memory & Cognition. 25: 801–811. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |first1= and |first= specified (help)
• Herrmann, D.; Crawford, M.; Holdsworth, M. (1992). "Gender-linked differences in everyday memory performance". British Journal of Psychology. 83: 221-231.
• Jacobs, J. L. (2004). "Women, genocide, and memory: the ethics of feminist ethnography in holocaust research". Gender and Society. 18 (2): 223–238.
• Murdoch, M.; Hodges, J.; Hunt, C.; Cowper, D.; Kressin, N.; O'Brien, N. (2003). "Gender differences in service connection for PTSD". Medical Care. 41 (8): 950–961.
• Walls, R. T.; Sperling, R. A.; Weber, K. D. (2001). "Autobiographical memory of school". The Journal of Educational Research. 95 (2): 116–127. doi:10.1080/00220670109596580.

New 86 country study of sex and intellegence

We should probably integrate the results of this study into our Intelligence section. Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you integretated them into the article? It looks like a reliable source and pretty much unbiased, showing facts and discussing that IQ is not something universal, there is variability in every country. --85.139.154.223 (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Spacial ability/Theories section: overlapping content?

Half of the Theories section refers to spacial ability and its possible relationship with exposure to androgens. I'm not sure, but shouldn't that be merged with the Spacial Abilities section above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.188.180 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sentences need clarification

"A 2004 review in Nature Reviews Neuroscience stated that the brain's sexual dimorphism is probably determined by genes on the sex chromosomes. They likely do so by causing the gonads to produce sex hormones that in turn affect the brain and also by directly affecting genes in the brain which make XX and XY cells different."

The first sentence makes sense, but the second sentence doesn't. It seems to be saying that sex-specific genes affect "genes in the brain which make XX and XY cells different". That seems like a circular statement that doesn't actually tell us anything. Plus, what are "XX and XY cells"? Aren't all cells in a male XY and all cells in a female XX? Kaldari (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, could be clearer. I have tried to improve it. Better? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Much easier to understand now, thanks! Kaldari (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Flynn makes news!!

Ugh, leave it to journalists to take a scientist's findings and completely lie about it. Has anyone else seen the plethora of badly written news articles all over internet that claim women are "smarter" and have surpassed men in IQ scores? James Flynn published a study in 2011 (Flynn, J. R., & Rossi-Case, L. 2011. Modern women match men on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Personality and Individual Differences, 50: 799–803) which showed women did as well as men on the Raven's test in South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina, Estonia, and Australia, scoring marginally higher (.5-1 point) in Estonia, Argentina, and New Zealand. He is writing a new book on such topics, including past research, but apparently the (seemingly unintelligent) media somehow interpreted this finding as women now outscoring men on IQ tests. It's completely crazy when you see how much influence this nonsensical story has had on the internet. PatriciaRedman (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And how is that related to editing the article? 50.131.220.134 (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the actual findings of the study might need to be mentioned somewhere in the IQ section. Any thoughts? PatriciaRedman (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, made a note in the "Controversies" section of the recent media fail regarding Jim Flynn. 76.220.103.17 (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

IQ last fact

I re-made the sentence "Although this would imply males and females have the same IQ, some researches have concluded males are slightly more intelligent than females" to "This implies males and females have the same IQ" or something due to the fact that the source linked to that sentence does not refer this slight difference at all.

"Although there are no sex differences in general intelligence, reliable differences are found on some tests of cognitive abilities. Many of the tasks that assess the ability to manipulate visual images in working memory show an advantage for males, whereas many of the tasks that require retrieval from long-term memory and the acquisition and use of verbal information show a female advantage. Large effects favoring males are also found on advanced tests of mathematical achievement, especially with highly select samples. Males are also overrepresented in some types of mental retardation. Effects sizes are variable and often large. These differences are generally found cross-culturally and across the life span. The nature–nurture dichotomy is rejected as an interpretive framework. In light of recent findings that environmental variables alter the biological underpinnings of intelligence and individuals actively participate in creating their environments, we prefer a psychobiosocial model for understanding sex differences in intelligence."

Take your conclusions for this. Thank you for reading. --85.139.154.223 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The link is here: study cited in the article. --85.139.154.223 (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement in the article, that some researchers conclude that males have a higher IQ than females, is taken directly from the Halpern paper that is cited:

"Despite the fact that intelligence tests are deliberately constructed in ways that ensure the same average scores for males and females, some psychologists have used intelligence test scores to argue that males are more intelligent than females. The most vocal advocate of the view that males are the smarter sex is Lynn (1994, 1998), who has administered intelligence tests to samples in Ireland and Scotland and reported that males obtained scores that are 2-5 points higher, on average, than female IQ scores. He used these results to argue that males are smarter than females, an argument that he bolsters with brain size data showing the male brains are, on average, slightly larger than female brains, even after adjusting for body size." p. 232.

Halpern is, of course, critical of these claims. But among Lynn are Helmuth Nyborg, Phil Rushton, Paul Irwing, etc. So the fact remains that some respected researchers do conclude males to have a higher IQ, even though most researchers do not. Since Lynn, Nyborg, etc are heavy-hitters in the field of psychometrics, it is worth mentioning. 76.220.103.17 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Would it be worth mentioning there the recent study made by Flynn which concludes females have caught up with males in terms of intelligence, instead of having it in the "Controversies" section? --85.139.154.223 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the study is already mentioned in the IQ section (Flynn and Rossi-Case, 2011). He published the study in 2011 in PAID. There is also a newer study by Irwing (2012) listed that shows a 3 point male advantage in g. The controversy about Flynn revolves around the reporting of the study in the media (the claim that woman are more intelligent), not the study itself (which shows negligible differences). Flynn himself has discredited the news reports.

Flynn, J. R.; Rossi-Casé, L. (2011). "Modern women match men on Raven's Progressive Matrices". Personality and Individual Differences 50 (6): 799.

Irwing, P. (2012). "Sex differences in g: An analysis of the US standardization sample of the WAIS-III". Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2): 126–124.

76.220.103.17 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.154.216 (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Spanish research

I found a link to a Spanish research on IQ differences between males and females, and I thought it might be worth mentioning. At the bottom of this page I've found criticism to Lynn's work, but I couldn't actually find the original article. --85.139.154.223 (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And also, I have realized the Spanish research has been linked before in this talk page, I didn't find any of its conclusions cited in the IQ section, though. Perhaps I'm wrong. This study has also been linked earlier, but I don't think anything of this has been added to the article. Thank you for reading. --85.139.154.223 (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does the section "gender identity" have a neutrality tag and why is it called what it is?

The section seems to be to be completely neutral. It makes little or no synthesis on the sources it mentions. However, the section is titled "gender identity". Surely it could be named something like "biological considerations"... 88.114.154.216 (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Black Americans: Sex and intelligence

Can someone include the fact that the average IQ score for black female Americans is significantly higher than that of their male counterparts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.9.67 (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi 47.18.9.67! If you have good, secondary sources – and please also check WP:MEDRS – then please be bold and write about it! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Copy Edit

I want to copy-edit the entire introduction and achieve expert consensus about my edits, which are:

• "This research uses experimental cognitive tests of IQ, spatial reasoning, aggression, emotion, and brain structure and function."

I switched "Uses" to "employs" because the former is simpler than and equivalent to the latter, and I omitted redundant latter mention of the tests' purpose and variety.

• "Most IQ tests are constructed to have equal average (mean) male and female scores.[1] Mean verbal and mathematical scores, among others, differ.[1]"

I grammatically simplified the first sentence and eliminated word cruft in both.

• "Socialization and environment may cause the different brain activity and behavior. Studies on this topic explore how social influences may affect both sexes' performance in cognitive and behavioral tests. Stereotypes about differences between men and women affect individuals' behavior.[2][3]"

I rewrote the topic sentence in Wikipedia's summary style, whereby articles and thus topic sentences are written for laypeople. I grammatically simplified the second sentence and removed the third's redundantly mentioning cited studies.

Duxwing (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Duxwing (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed poor sources

Brizendine is not considered cannon. If you wish to reference these books it should not be general statements that could be referenced by other better sources. Additionally there are issues with the article and it does not take in newer psychological reviews. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Brizendine is a secondary source, and she is a qualified expert in the field. Both books are notable and relevant. Memills (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

They have received incredibly harsh critique from the field. I think we should try and stay clear from them except when mentioning her theories. If you look at WP:MEDRS they fall under the popular press, as they aren't published by any major scientific publisher. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Also to be clear they are not secondary sources. Unfortunately Brizandine brings in a whole lot of anecdotal and primary source evidence in her arguments, and as such the books don't even really pass WP:RS. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an excellent popular science book on this; Fine's. It systematically finds fault in nearly all of the arguments in Brizendine's books, by pointing to severe flaws or issues with the underlying studies, or just clear misinterpretations of studies by Brizendine. The difference here is that all the claims in Fine's book are sourced and it makes no new claims based on iffy science. For a review see this PlosBiology article: [10] -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine's book, Delusions of gender, has been severely criticized by some of the top academic sex differences researchers. From the WP article on the book: Diane Halpern, said Fine's book fails to point out sex "differences that are supported by a body of carefully conducted and well-replicated research." Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist, said "Fine hasn't a clue about biology." McCarthy and Ball (2011) reviewed the book in the journal Biology of Sex Differences. They expressed disappointment that Fine's book "...can be vexing in the ways the scientific study of sex differences in brain and behavior is portrayed and (how) the current state-of-the-art is presented."

Again, whether a book is controversial does not itself preclude it from being used as a reference; that applies equally to the popular books by Fine and Brizendine. Memills (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I wouldn't use Fine's book to back any statements concerning the overall subject. I removed Brizendine from a WP:MEDRS statement, not because citing here was wrong, but because there are much better sources. Fine has also received positive reviews in Nature [11] [12] [13], but I still don't suggest we use it for anything except to discuss the views brought forth in the book. We can discuss both books elsewhere in the article, but I wouldn't do so in the lede, and statements such as hormonal effect on psychology we should stick to WP:MEDRS sources. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, this topic is not about "biomedical information." WP:MEDRS does not apply to it. Memills (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Statements such as the one about hormones playing a role in sex differences most certainly does. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The psychological effects of hormones is basic research in psychology -- it is not medical research. If prose is added that relates to medical diagnoses or treatment, then I agree that WP:MEDRS would apply, but just to that prose. Memills (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yangxinxin0407, Samd97. Peer reviewers: Sgagan1996.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cvonne12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)