Talk:Sex differences in psychology/Archive 2

NPOV

This article uses a number of old or primary sources to explain differences in sex/gender that do not exist. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That is an over-broad statement, and it is factually incorrect.

First, let's not rehash our older discussions (see above).

Second, if you wish to challenge a specific finding or topic, please do so, and include references.

Before placing (or restoring) a NPOV tag, please wait for discussion and consensus here on the Talk page. Memills (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

What current, secondary sources are available on this article topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few recent (since 2000), secondary sources that focus on sex differences derived from the process of sexual selection:

* Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities: 4th Edition, Sep, 2011, by Diane F. Halpern

* Sex Differences: Summarizing More than a Century of Scientific Research, 2008, by Lee Ellis and Scott Hershberger

* Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Sexual Psychology and Behavior, 2014, by Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford and Todd K. Shackelford

* Sex Differences, 2000, Linda Mealey

* Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, 2009, by David C. Gear

* Sex Differences in the Brain: From Genes to Behavior, 2007, by Jill B. Becker, Karen J. Berkley, Nori Geary, Elizabeth Hampson, James P. Herman, Elizabeth Young

* Sexual Selection, 2012, by Natacha Merritt

* Evolution and Human Sexual Behavior, 2013, by Peter B. Gray

* Sexual Selection and the Origins of Human Mating Systems, 2009, by Alan F. Dixson

* Odd Couples: Extraordinary Differences between the Sexes in the Animal Kingdom, 2013

* Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, Fifth Edition, 2014, by David Buss

* A Mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women, 2002, by Anne Campbell

* The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature, 2001, by Geoffrey Miller

* Why sex matters, 2000, by Bobbi Low

* Louise Barrett, Robin Dunbar, and John Lycett (2002) Human Evolutionary Psychology

* Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, 2011, by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy

* Evolution's Empress: Darwinian Perspectives on the Nature of Women, 2013, by Maryann Fisher

* The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, 2003, by Matt Ridley

Memills (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

While some of these are decent most are severely out-dated. There are significant new reviews out since 2010, and I believe we should stick to these. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, do share.

Reviews of sex differences that are likely to be sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations (the result of sexual selection) are appropriate for this article. Social constructionist literature is more appropriate for the article Social construction of gender difference.

Also, there is a difference between "severely out-dated" (as in no longer accurate), and, published within the past 15 years and still on the mark and relevant. Imho, none of the books I listed above fall in the former category. Memills (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It has been over a week, and despite requests, CFCF has not provided substantive arguments or references to support a NPOV tag for the article -- so I will remove it. Again, please first discuss here before re-placing it. Memills (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2015 (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)

Lead rewrite

There are a few problems with the recent rewrite of the lead:

1. Citations are not normally used in lead sections, except for controversial statements. Each sentence of this new lead has several citations (5 in one case), which is excessive.
2. The sentences are poorly constructed for readability. They are extremely wordy and jargony. The new lead achieves a negative score on the Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease test (which means virtually unreadable), and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level is 19! For comparison, the previous lead had an Ease score of 33.4, and a Grade Level of 13.
3. It seems to remove a fair bit of information that was previously in the lead.

Kaldari (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've mostly reverted to the old lead for now (although keeping some of your improvements to the lead sentence). Let's talk about the other changes and get more people's input before changing it further. Kaldari (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is normal of for leads to include citations, and not just for controversial statements. I see citations in the lead more often than I do not, and that's regarding various topics. Like WP:CITELEAD states, "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." And with as many inexperienced Wikipedia editors this site has, and even many experienced Wikipedia editors who will tag something in the lead as needing a citation because they are too lazy to see that it's verified lower in the article or simply don't know that the lead doesn't necessarily require citations (because they aren't as experienced a Wikipedia editor as one would expect), I usually cite the lead.

Anyway, I was going to post in the section immediately above this one to let that editor who proposed changes to the lead know that a different editor recently changed it following his proposal. I figured that Memills's changes to the lead should be reverted, but I didn't feel like addressing it and I felt that you would address it if there is a problem, since I saw your name in the talk page edit history. The gaps between the references stood out to me and then I moved on; I didn't bother to read the changes. Flyer22 (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the new revision is even worse than its predecessor. It is even more verbose, describes not the differences but their research, and omits whether the intuitive question, "Do these differences exist?" is answered. I propose we determine whether reputable sources state these differences exist: if they do, then we should move all mention of research to an appropriate sub-section, and if they do not, then we should preface the articular title with "Research on.." to reflect the discovered scientific controversy. Resolving these content problems would stabilize the lead for copy-editing. Duxwing (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, the current (reverted) lead is fairly sophomoric. It inadequately captures the breadth of the field. This is a very broad, complex field. The current lead refers to sex differences in IQ which is but a minor topic in the field. Further, the statement "this research employs experimental tests which take a variety of forms" is incorrect. Actually, the majority of the research is non-experimental (correlational, observational, survey-based, etc.). Both of these passages should be deleted from the lead.

My (now reverted) revision, below, is referenced by major textbooks. It better characterizes and parses the broad spectrum of research and theory related to the topic:

Research on sex differences in human psychology may investigate neurological, psychological (e.g., emotional, motivational, cognitive, sexual, behavioral), and social differences between men and women, both within and across cultures. Such research may examine sex differences in brain structure and function, sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations that may be evolutionary consequents of the process of sexual selection, the effects of differential socialization of the sexes, and, how both biological and cultural factors may interact to produce psychological and behavioral sex differences.

I presume that the high reading level scores are high primarily due to the sentence length. Certainly that could be massaged a bit if needed. But, again, the above lead gives a far more complete, and accurate overview of the field, and it is supported and sourced by major textbooks. Suggest we work together to keep the best of this material. Memills (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Memills, perhaps splitting the article into one on biological sex differences and one on their research would resolve this dispute. Duxwing (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to splitting the article on the basis of biological vs. cultural sex differences, that would confuse the matter further. "Is it nature or nurture?" is the wrong question to ask and muddles thinking. The consensus among scientists is that behavior is a complex interaction of biological and environmental factors ( ...a more relevant question: "Is the behavior a manifestation of an underlying sexually dimorphic psychological adaptation, or, is it a byproduct, or, random variation?") A good reference in this regard is one referenced in the proposed lead above: Lippa, R. A. (2009). Gender, Nature, and Nurture. NY: LEA. Memills (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Nature vs. nurture is a false dichotomy. Splitting the article would just cause more confusion than it would solve, IMO. I also agree with you that the current lead is perhaps oversimplified and misleading in parts, however, the lead needs to be readable and not overly complicated. Can we rewrite it with simpler sentences and less technical wording? Just imagine that you're writing it for a high school textbook, not a master's thesis. Also, it seems a bit redundant to say that "Research on sex differences in human psychology may investigate... psychological... differences." Kaldari (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Memellis, I am not referring to splitting the article "on the basis of biological vs. cultural sex differences". Rather, I suggested splitting the article into one on research about biological sex differences and another about the differences themselves. Why did you and Kaldari think I was referring to "nature vs. nurture"? Duxwing (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped to conclusions about what you were suggesting. I'm not sure I see any way we could separate the differences from the research about the differences, especially since many of the claimed differences between men and women are not universally agreed upon (and psychology is not known for being the most empirical of sciences). Perhaps we could have List of human sex-linked genes, but otherwise it seems it would be hard to talk about sex differences without talking about research and debate at the same time. Kaldari (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. :) If the differences are not agreed-upon, then the article should be retitled "Research on Sexual Differences in Human Psychology," the original title become a redirect to the retitled article, which would in its lead state that the differences are not agreed-upon: leaving the title like it would mislead readers into believing that scientific consensus supports sexual differences in human psychology. Duxwing (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sex differences in human psychology is the scientific consensus (see, for example, the textbooks listed in my proposed lead above). Some malformed debate, primary from those outside of the sciences, is based on the incorrect nature vs. nurture categorization. Of course, there is scientific debate about which psychological/neurological traits are sexually dimorphic as distal consequents of the effects of sexual selection, how these traits interact with the environment, and their malleability. But, this is normal science -- tentative, cumulative, and, hopefully, progressive.

Per Kaldari's suggestions to simply and clarify the proposed new lead, I'll take a stab at this in a few days. Memills (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Memellis. :) If research, findings, and debate about sexual differences in human psychology are scientific consensus and should be in one article, then should the article encompass these three subjects by leading with the more encompassing phrase "Sexual differences in human psychology..." rather than the more specific "Research on sexual differences in human psychology"? A layperson and a newbie to content-editing, I out of curiosity ask: are you a scientist, and how big are the differences?

Also, should we create a working lead to edit without affecting the present one? Below is an aggressively copy-edited first draft:

"Sexual differences in human psychology affect neurology, cognition, and behavior.

Research of these differences tests areas like IQ, spatial reasoning, aggression, emotion, and brain structure and function. Socialization and environment affect brain activity and behavior, impeding efforts to determine whether discovered differences are innate.

Most IQ tests are constructed to have equal average (mean) male and female scores.[1] Mean scores have differed in areas like verbal and mathematical ability.[1] Stereotypes about inter-sexual differences affect behavior.[2][3]" Duxwing (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

How big are sex differences? Depends. Most sex differences have small to moderate effect sizes (e.g., there is a great deal of overlap in the male and female distributions on the trait). Large effect sizes are more likely to be found on traits that are more closely related to reproduction (courtship, sexuality, mating, parenting, etc.) -- and some of those effect sizes are quite large (there is one wherein the two distributions barely overlap at all).

"Sexual differences in human psychology affect neurology" -- that doesn't make much sense -- the reverse is also true. Again, the stuff on IQ doesn't deserve a place in the lead -- it is but one minor sub-field. Scientists don't much use the term "innate" (again, it promotes a spurious dichotomous "nature vs. nurture" thinking). "Stereotypes" and "gender roles" are often used as labels that are not in themselves complete, satisfying explanations. They do not arise de-novo and the causality of their genesis calls out for explanation.

I can especially recommend the textbooks listed in my proposed lead by Mealy, Geary and Halpern for more info on these topics.

Again, I'll try to post an alternative lead soon. Memills (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think stereotype threat is a fairly significant issue in gender-related psychology research, and would favor mentioning it in the lead, but perhaps with different wording. Kaldari (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it should be in the lead, but, it is appropriate to specific subtopic areas where it might be relevant (e.g., mathematics performance), and, in the gender role article. However, some research has failed to support the hypothesis . Memills (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Memellis.  :) Would adjusting my proposed lead around your concerns make it satisfactory? Duxwing (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

...er, or how about vice-versa?  ;-) Memills (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

:D Ooooh! Post your proposed lead and let Kaldari decide which we should use. Duxwing (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Breaking News (AP, 3/28/14): Kaldari vs. Jimbo -- after a bloody cage match, Kaldari seizes control of WP! Quoted as saying "The Ukraine is next! Memills (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hahahaha! :) That fiend! Which lead will our glorious leader Kaldari choose? Duxwing (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for revised lead

Per the discussion above, here is a proposal for a significantly revised, and imho, far more accurate lead (simplified and more readable than my previous version, above):

Research on sex differences in human psychology spans several disciplinary boundaries to identify robust neurological, psychological, and social differences between men and women. The the term "sex differences" (as compared to "gender differences") is typically applied to sexually dimorphic traits that are hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection.

There are several major divisions of research:

• Sex differences in brain structure and function,

• Sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations that may result in sex differences in emotion, motivation, cognition, sexuality, or behavior.

• The effects of differential socialization of the sexes,

• How biological and cultural factors may interact to produce psychological and behavioral sex differences.

Again, the above captures the breath of research in this area, it cites major textbooks as sources, and, it differentiates the research focus of "sex differences" vs. "gender differences." Memills (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

My revision of your revision:

Sex differences in human psychology are neurological, psychological, and social differences between men and women, usually sexually dimorphic, sexually selected traits.

Research of these differences comprises several major divisions:

• Brain structure and function,

• Psychological adaptations perhaps resulting in sex differences in emotion, motivation, cognition, sexuality, or behavior.

• Differential socialization,

• Bio-cultural influence on psychology and behavior.

Duxwing (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm workin with ya. How about this:

The the term "sex differences" (as compared to "gender differences") is typically applied to sexually dimorphic traits that are hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection.

Note: I think it is important to differentiate "sex differences" from "gender differences" at the outset.

Research on sex differences in human psychology spans several research areas:

Note: We don't really need to define the term "sex differences in human psychology" (it is sufficiently self-descriptive), but we should note that it is NOT one narrow field of study, but that the relevant research spans the following areas. And, a few edits for clarity in the prose below.'

• Sex differences in brain structure and function,

• Psychological traits (e.g., emotion, motivation, cognition, sexuality) that may be sexually dimorphic

• The influence of socialization and culture on sex differences.

• How biological and social/cultural factors interact to produce sex differences.

Memills (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yay! You're working with me! :)

*1.If readers might not think the differences biological, then saying so in the title would be more concise; e.g., "Biological sex differences in human psychology".

*2. If the lead is on research about these sex differences, then why is the title about the differences? Their aforementioned inseprability aside, thus starting the article is confusing because readers expect articles' first bolded words to be their titles, not variations thereof. Furthermore, readers read to learn what "sex differences in human psychology" are, necessitating their definition.

*3. Mentioning "sex differences" in the areas of study seems redundant because the studies' seeking these differences is already stated.

*4. The writing is wordy; e.g., readers already know "sex differences in human psychology" is a term because Wikipedia's house style is to define each article's title in its lead's first sentence. Would you like me to tighten the prose when we decide what to write?

*5. Is the interdisciplinarity not obvious? Neurologists study neurology; psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists study behavior, etc. If not, I think we ought to retitle the article.

*By the way, you never answered my question about whether you are a scientist: you write like one. :)

Duxwing (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes (although WP would not give that note even if I was a Nobel Prize winner... ;-P )

I've taken the liberty of numbering your items above, so I can refer to them here without copying the text.

1. "Sex differences" are not biological. This the false/misleading "nature vs. nurture" categorization I have noted repeatedly, above. All behavior is a complex interaction of both. The correct distinction is: traits that are "sex differences" are presumably manifestations of sexually dimorphic adaptations (a consequent of sexual selection). The sex difference in height is an example; the "gender difference" in head hair length is not due to a sexually dimorphic adaptation and would not be included in this article.

2. There isn't a field of study called "sex differences" per se (like there are disciplines of biology or psychology) -- the "field" is an amalgamation of research from several different disciplines. I don't think we need to define "sex differences in human psychology" -- most folks get the idea.

3. I see your point. Let's revise the sentence: "Research on sex differences in human psychology spans several research areas:" to "Research spans several scientific disciplines to investigate sex differences in:"

Then, the redundancy in the sentences below can be deleted.

4. Sure, tighten it up.

5. The edit suggested for #3 I think would obviate this concern.

Memills (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am curious! :) Relax.

1 They are biological insofar as sexually-selected traits lead to them.

2 Oh, this article is a mongrel.

3 Very well! :)

4 Very well.

5 Very well, now to retitle the article and add a redirection.

Duxwing (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Once more, with feeling. Ommmm...

1. Everything neurological, psychological, or social is a phenotype -- biology interacting with environment. Sex differences are phenotypes that are presumably due to traits that are sexually dimorphic (e.g., height). But, I repeat myself.

2. But, quite cute despite it.

3 - 4. Good. Good.

5. Er... what?

So, here it is:

The term "sex differences" (as compared to "gender differences") is typically applied to sexually dimorphic traits that are hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection. Research in this field spans several scientific disciplines that investigate psychological and behavioral differences between men and women including differences in:

• Brain structure and function.

• Psychological traits. (e.g., emotion, motivation, cognition, sexuality)

• The effects of differential socialization.

Since all behaviors are phenotypes -- a complex interaction of both nature and nurture -- researchers are particularly interested in investigating how biological and environmental factors interact to produce sex differences.

Memills (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

1 Oh! Thanks! :) I never knew a phenotype included nurture's effect.

2 I love dogs, especially when they lick my face and snuggle.

3 - 5 I understand now. Well-written, by the way. :)

Joining in the meditation, Ommmmm...

"Sex differences" are sexually dimorphic traits hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection. Their research spans several scientific disciplines investigating psychological and behavioral differences between men and women, chiefly in

• Brain structure and function.

• Psychological traits like emotion, motivation, cognition, and sexuality.

• Differential socialization.

All behaviors are phenotypes -- a complex interaction of both nature and nurture -- researchers especially investigate how biology and environment together produce sex differences.

I aggressively removed word cruft. Duxwing (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Harder.  :-P

Good work. Exactly what WP should be at its best: constructively collaborative.

I will go ahead and post it. Memills (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

:D You've been a bad writer! Bad!

Awwwww, yay! This constructive collaboration beats my previous method, which was lonely and frustrating at best. I am glad to have met you: is Wikipedia full of people like you? :)

One more copy-edit!

Sex differences in human psychology are sexually dimorphic psychological traits hypothesized to be consequences of sexual selection. [1] [2] Their research spans several scientific disciplines, investigating psychological and behavioral differences between men and women due to:

*Genetics and epigenetics. [3]

*Brain structure and function.[4] [5] [6]

*Hormones [7]

*Psychological traits like emotion, motivation, cognition, and sexuality. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

*Differential socialization. [13] [14]

Researchers especially investigate how biology and environment interact to produce sex differences because all behaviors are phenotypes, complex interactions of nature and nurture.[15] [16] [17] [18]

Duxwing (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, tell me more, please! Tell me more about my eyes...

Yes, all Wikipedians are reasonable, friendly, collaborative, and assume good faith. A brief visit to the Administrator's Notice Board will verify it.  ;-P

I'll incorporate your edits.

But, if I may copy edit one of your copy edits. "Their" doesn't work in the sentence above because there is no "their" there. Therefore, it should be an "it" which is accomplished simply by deleting the first word there: "their."

And, the last sentence is now so over copy edited that it is awkward -- best leave it as it is, agreed?

We got it! Hear! Hear! to collaborative copy editing! Memills (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

:D You win the creep-out war.

:) And I have noticed a bond existing only in editing.

I have removed a bit of word cruft from the last sentence. Duxwing (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

...would that all WP edit wars be transformed into such amicable and reasonable Talk page discussions.

Cruft -- and, you taught me a new word, too. Memills (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

*swoons* My dear, I think I'm falling in love. <3 I want more! Are you working on any other projects? Duxwing (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not at the moment, will let you know when I do. But, in the meantime, could you tell me more about my eyes?  ;-P Memills (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope to see you soon, not only because I working with you is fun, but because I can't speak of eyes I have not seen. ;-P Duxwing (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

CFCF: Please bring proposed article name changes, and multiple simultaneous edits, to the Talk Page first for discussion

CFCF -- before changing the title of the article itself, tagging the article, and making numerous, substantive changes to the article in one fell swoop, I suggest that you bring some of your proposed edits here to the talk page first (as you did, above, for a previously reverted edit). Or make an edit or two and wait for reactions from other editors.

For example, regarding your title change of the article from "Sex differences in human psychology" to "Sexual differences in psychology:" in the English language research literature the term "sex differences" is used to denote differences between the sexes in a variety of traits (e.g., behavioral, hormonal, neurological) that may not be related to sexuality. The term "sexual differences" is used to refer to sexual behavior, per se.

For now, I have reverted your numerous edits. But, I do encourage you to bring the discussion of your proposed edits here. Alternately, again, you could make one or two edits at at time and wait to see how other editors respond (perhaps a day or two) before making more edits. If other editors believe an edit should be reverted or modified, they can do so, and, if needed, further discussion can be brought here to the Talk page.

I appreciate your interest in working to improve the article. Memills (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I too appreciate the interest in improving the article. As a native speaker of English who reads the professional literature on this topic, yes, "Sex differences" is more idiomatic and expected English than "sexual differences" for what this article is about. Sourcing the entire article to the WP:MEDRS content guideline is a very good idea that should be applied to most articles on related topics, which are often quite contentious. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the edits, and moved the article again omitting human in the title, as this was my original intent, I changed sex to sexual for good measure. I realise that was wrong after looking through pubmed.

The edits in question are slight changes where I have applied WP:MEDRS to applicable statements. Basically anything in this article apart from history and societal effects (basically anthropology) should be sourced in accordance to MEDRS in my view. (Feel free to discuss this). This means any newspaper articles, although they pass WP:RS, should not be used for these types of statements. As for Brizendine's books, they have been very heavily criticised and should really only be used to refer to any statements those books have made, and not to any general statements.

There are a number of newer psychological reviews that we could really use to improve the article, and I will be listing them here shortly. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

CFCF, again I ask you to please bring proposed changes here to the Talk page first, especially about changing the article's title and multiple simultaneous edits. You restored your previous edits, and renamed the title again, without first allowing time for discussion here on the Talk page. I have again restored the title of the article, and restored the article to the previous version.

Re the change in title: The deletion of the word "human" from the title is inappropriate. This article focuses on human psychological differences; psychology includes the study of non-human behavioral sex differences as well, and there are other articles that are devoted to behavioral sex differences in non-human animals (e.g., see sexual dimorphism).

This article does not fall under WP:MEDRS guidelines. The focus of the article is on basic scientific research on a non-medical topic. There is no prose in the article that refers to medical diagnosis or treatment. If such material is added (e.g., sex differences in rates of disease or drug reactions), that specific material might fall under WP:MEDRS guidelines.

The Brizendine books are secondary sources and are broad overviews of research on neurological and hormonal sex differences. Whether they are controversial or not doesn't affect their use as relevant and notable reference sources.

Again, to avoid edit wars, please bring discussion of edits here first. Note the long collaborative discussion above here in the Talk page section "Proposal for revised lead," about changing the lead before final changes were made. That discussion went on for days. Please wait until there is discussion and consensus on the Talk page before reverting again or editing multiple sections.

The purpose of the Talk page is facilitate discussion and collaborative editing, and to avoid edit wars. Please use it. Memills (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would again emphasize that many of the statements made in the Brizendine books are far, far from secondary source material. There is anecdotal material in there, and a great misrepresentation of facts. For an overview see the plosbiology review I linked elsewhere. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is "a great misrepresentation of facts" -- that is your opinion, it is WP:OR. Whether there is "anecdotal material in there" doesn't preclude it as being used as a reference. Brizendine's books are introductory overviews and meet the criteria of a WP:RS. Memills (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason for invoking WP:MEDRS is because of the multitude of bad sources that would be available under WP:RS. None of the sources I removed really stand up to WP:RS when compared to the better sources available instead. MEDRS is an extension of WP:RS can be use in order to simplify the process, instead of discussing each and every source. I and WeijiBaikeBianji also agree that it would be very good to hold this article up to MEDRS due to the very nature of it being controversial. By using MEDRS we make it clear that we only use clear facts in the article and present scientific consensus (see WP:MEDSCI).

In nearly all fields of psychology humans are the premier research subject. There is no need to add human in the title of the article unless there is a reason to believe the article should not be about humans.

I have restored the edits again. I am willing to discuss individual edits, but I would like to remind you that you do not WP:OWN the article, and edits must always be discussed before being made. You have not made clear why you are reverting anything beside the Brizendine books. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

*Louann Brizendine is a "neuropsychiatrist who is both a researcher and a clinician" (see her WP article), and her books are broad overviews of hormonal and neurological sex differences based on a review the scientific literature.

Yes, but they are popular overviews with quite a bit of sensationalism and anecdotal evidence thrown in for good measure. They don't stand up to WP:MEDRS for when it comes to biomedical research. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

*One does not invoke WP:MEDRS simply because a topic is controversial. The topic must be related to "biomedical information" -- this topic is not. It is related to basic research in psychology.

*Again, the title "Sex differences in psychology" includes animal behavior (the discipline of psychology includes the study of animal behavior); "Sex differences in human psychology" clarifies that the article does not cover non-human animals.

You state that "edits must always be discussed before being made" -- but you are not doing that yourself. Instead, you have made multiple changes to the title of the article, tagged it several times with multiple tags, deleted references, and significantly modified multiple sections simultaneously -- all before discussing the proposed changes here. Even when reverted, you have gone ahead and restored your changes before discussing it here (i.e., this is the third title changeyou have made -- each time without prior Talk page discussion, and, even after reversion). Memills (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I said that not all edits need to be discussed beforehand, and I am very open to discussing any specific edits. What I mean is reverting everything is unnecessary and implies WP:bad faith. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You made multiple simultaneous edits to multiple sections, deleted appropriately sourced prose, deleted appropriate WP:RS references, placed multiple tags on the article, and even changed the title of the article (three times!) -- all without first taking these changes to the Talk page. When these changes were reverted, and you were asked to bring it to the Talk page, instead of doing so, you simply restored your original changes -- twice! That borders on WP:Edit warring and is not appropriate collaborative WP editing. Memills (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither is reverting edits without discussing their content. I have removed only that from the article that is in direct violation of various RS guidelines. Some of which where recent edits that arguably could never either have been subject to consensus. I suggest that if there is any specific change I made that shouldn't be, that you discuss it specifically. There is no ownership of articles, and there is no policy against performing multiple edits at one time. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WPownership isn't the issue, it is collaborative editing, WP:Consensus and avoiding WP:Edit Warring. As I suggested a couple of times already above, rather than make a great number of significant edits and deletions at one time, it would be more helpful if you made just "one or two edits at at time and wait to see how other editors respond (perhaps a day or two) before making more edits. If other editors believe an edit should be reverted or modified, they can do so, and, if needed, further discussion can be brought here to the Talk page." Memills (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy against making large-scale edits, or many edits at once. In fact it is encouraged. Removing all edits without discussing them implies WP:Bad faith. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is policy to discuss edits about which there is disagreement on the Talk page. When I reverted your edits, I did just that: I suggested that you bring your proposed edits here to the Talk page because I saw them as problematic. But even after I made that suggestion, you restored your edits without discussing them on the Talk page -- twice. Memills (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Source

I will make a list of sources I will be using here:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23808917 2014 meta-analysis in Annual Psychology Reviews.
• (more to come)

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Move

This move from Sex differences in human psychology to Sex differenced in psychology should be very uncontroversial. Please see: WP:PRECISE for why the article name should be changed. There is no need to emphasize that these differences are present in humans, when there is virtually no reason to believe the article would be about something else. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above: the title "Sex differences in psychology" includes animal behavior (virtually any intro psychology textbook defines the discipline of psychology as the scientific study of human and animal behavior); "Sex differences in human psychology" clarifies that the article does not cover non-human animals.Memills (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but traditionally psychology focuses on humans. Therefore we should assume most readers will be looking for human sex differences in psychology when they find this article. If there ever is an article covering animal differences we simple add a {{see|Sex differences in animal psychology}} template at the top of this page. It is already difficult to find articles about sex differences as it is, we should not further muddle the field by adding human to the title of articles where there is no non-human counterpart. Our society is very anthropocentric, and we should assume readers will be looking for information pertaining to humans before we assume they are looking for information pertaining to animal psychology.

If an editor comes along and wants to add information on animals I think its better there is one paragraph at the bottom of this page than that Sex differences in psychology is a stub with information about animals and a link to this substantially longer article. It is well known that readers will look at the articles that they first find, and having precise names helps more readers find this article.-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Humans are animals. Psychology is the study of human and animal behavior. "Sex differences in psychology" refers to both humans and non-humans. "Sex differences in human psychology" would be a template at the top of (a future) "Sex differences in psychology" page: {{see|Sex differences in human psychology}}.

A WP search for "Sex differences in psychology" will surely bring up "Sex differences in human psychology". Memills (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no such article, and Wikipedia is a work in progress, we shouldn't anticipate new articles that aren't there yet. Until such an article is created we should not add human in each and every title. WP:PRECISE is very relevant here, please read it. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are several WP articles that do examine sex differences in animal psychology, including Animal sexuality, Ethology, and Comparative psychology. The term "sex differences" could broadly apply to humans or non-humans. Given that there is a vast scientific literature on non-human psychological and behavioral sex differences (again, see Sexual dimorphism in particular), the specification of "human sex differences" is an important differentiation and is consistent with WP:PRECISE. Memills (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but as long as there is no main article on Sexual differences in psychology that includes animals there is no need. It is not consistent with WP:PRECISE as long as there isn't a main article. Readers will not come here looking for animal psychology. The articles you speak of either have strong associations to animals or are about animals (ethology). -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think we've come to the point where we need to accept that we disagree. Perhaps others can chime in here. Memills (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CFCF about the article title; I don't have to elaborate on that. CFCF touched on points I would have brought up (though I wouldn't have thought to mention WP:PRECISE). Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on article title and comment on sourcing

I see two editors, both of whom I have interacted with before coming here on their user talk pages, are very actively editing this article over the last day or so, in many cases undoing each other's edits. This article has needed a lot of work during the years it has been on my watchlist, so I'm glad to see editors rolling up their sleeves to volunteer to fix the article. There has been back-and-forth about the article title. In a similar case in the last few months, I thought it was most wise to have both an article Behavioural genetics that gives full expression to the rich research base on behavior in nonhuman animals, and an article Human behaviour genetics that specifically relates to behavior genetics in human beings. If there is enough material in the sources (perhaps there is), then maybe that would be the way to go here, ending up with two articles, one at high generality pertaining to sex differences in psychology in general, and one pertaining to sex differences in human psychology. I don't claim to know the relevant sources as widely for this topic as I do for behavior genetics, so I'm agnostic about how this issue should come out except to say that the result should be source-driven.

On the issue of proper sourcing for any article like this, it is crucial to remember that even the general Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources reminds us that primary research articles in general are not good sources for Wikipedia editing in general.

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. ... Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.

— )

Moreover, the topic of human individual differences or human group differences is largely a topic that needs to be sourced to the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources for medicine. That content guideline says, "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to 'debunk' or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. Synthesis of published material that advances a position is a form of original research and should be avoided in Wikipedia articles, which are not a venue for open research." I have, alas, repeatedly seen articles on Wikipedia within the scope of the broad topic of human behavior that are edited with too little regard for these important content guidelines, which are simply part of standard scholarly procedure for editing an encyclopedia. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and I have plenty of access to good sources just now as a Wikipedian Visiting Scholar at one research university and an alumnus and "friend of the library" at another research university, so I'm happy to help the effort to improve the sourcing of this article. I take care to recommend to Wikipedians with intellectual curiosity and university-level reading ability sources that will show what the current scientific consensus is on contentious issues and what advanced textbooks and practitioner's handbooks record as established fact after multiple researchers have digested current research. I encourage everyone involved in editing this Wikipedia article to give top priority to finding reliable, secondary current sources for all the statements in article text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with you re the title, and the need for two separate articles. One that focuses on genetic, hormonal, neurological, cognitive and behavioral sexual dimorphisms (sex differences) in non-human animals, and the other for the human animal.

As I noted above, I disagree with you about Wikipedia:MEDRS -- this an article about basic scientific research in psychology, not medicine. Wikipedia:MEDRS cannot simply be invoked at will.

Agree wholeheartedly with your comment that this article should focus on the "current scientific consensus" (emphasis added) about sexually dimorphic adaptations. Everyone seems to think they have an expert opinion about sex differences, including philosophers, religious prophets, politicians, sociologists, rappers and taxi cab drivers, but few of these are based on scientific research related to sexually dimorphic adaptations. Perhaps there should be a second article on "Gender differences" (which currently redirects here) to accommodate those more philosophical discussions, and the perspective that all differences between the sexes are entirely socially constructed (see Social construction of gender difference, Gender role and Gender). Memills (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Expansion of history section

Currently the history section only features Darwin's theories. [1] gives some pointers to other historical works, such as “The Evolution of Woman: An Inquiry Into the Dogma of Her Inferiority,” Eliza Burt Gamble (1894) - the 1916 edition is available online in full. Thoughts? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about "sex differences," which, as noted in the lead, are defined as presumed manifestations of evolved sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations. The reference above does not focus on this topic, however, it might be appropriate for inclusion in the Gender or Gender role articles. Memills (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not see what you refer to? The book most definitely brings up questions relevant to this article. Just because it isn't in the title does not mean the book doesn't take on this subject. The plosbiology review will give indication that it very much does. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please give me the PLOS Biology review link -- I'll take a look at it. Memills (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It was this one [2] -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That link is to a review of Fine's Delusions of Gender, not to the source you referred to above: Eliza Burt Gamble (1894) book. Memills (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it discusses additional books as well. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find any specific passage, but maybe you're right that it would be better suited for other articles. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Darwin

This source is pre-darwin:

• An enquiry into the duties of the female sex. Thomas Gisborne 1797

It is discussed here [3].

Additionally I would think Aristotle etc. would have quite a bit to say on the psychological differences between men and women (even though they wouldn't have called it that). Looking into it. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, the focus of this article is the psychological science related to "sex differences" -- defined as evolved sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations due to sexual selection (and their distal behavioral manifestations). It is not about non-scientific philosophical, political or sociological conceptions of gender. Memills (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, and neither am I suggesting it should be. The book above dives into why the duties are different, and discusses what female duties are in the light of differences in "mental powers". In Hyde's 2014 review she cites:

The Power who called the human race into being has, with infinite wisdom, regarded, in the structure of the corporeal frame, the tasks which the different sexes were respectively destined to fulfil. . . . He has adopted with the most conspicuous wisdom, a corresponding plan of discrimination between the mental powers and dispositions of the two sexes. The science of legislation, of jurisprudence; the conduct of government in all its executive functions; the abstruse researches of erudition. . . assigned chiefly or entirely to men, demand the efforts of a mind endued with close and comprehensive reasoning in a degree in which they are not requisite for the discharge of the customary offices of female duty. . . to diffuse throughout the family circle the enlivening and endearing smile of cheerfulness, the superiority of the female mind is unrivalled. (Gisborne 1797, pp. 19–22)

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That might be relevant to religious or historical discussions of why men and women differ, but not here. Otherwise, we might as well include reference to the story the origin of the sexes in the Book of Genesis. Memills (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

To me it seems utterly relevant to bring into the discussion how views on psychological differences have been seen throughout history. Otherwise there is no reason to include Darwin either. He definitely was not the first to speak of psychological differences (or even evolution for that matter), and neither did he denote any differences as such. The Book of Genesis doesn't really discuss these themes, although there might definately be things in the bible that are relevant. I'm no scholar of such things, so I wouldn't know. Any discussion of disposition of mental faculties that is pre-psychological I see as very relevant. On the other hand I don't think the History section should be this high up in the article, I would likely place it towards the end. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge from Gender psychology

Regardless of the title of Gender Psychology these articles are on the exact same subject, and would do very well to be merged. Gender psychology was a result of an AFC, and hasn't seen much love since. Merging the articles would allow for easier improvement. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sex and gender are defined quite differently (see Sex and gender distinction).

"Sex differences," as noted here and elsewhere, are differences between men and women that are presumably influenced by evolved sexually dimorphic adaptations (e.g., height, physical aggression, verbal fluency, spatial abilities, etc.).

"Gender differences" are typically defined as differences between the sexes that are primarily due to differential socialization of traits that are not sexually dimorphic adaptations (e.g., "monomorphic" traits).

Far better to have two separate articles. Combining the two would be like mixing oil and water. Memills (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read my motivation! The article on Gender psychology covers the exact same thing as this one does, it does in fact not cover gender. Your arguments are completely irrelevant. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the two articles cover different topics. The two articles could be merged in to a "Sex and gender differences in human psychology" article, with the article divided into two major subsections, one for each topic, but that would make the article far too long.

I have no problem moving some of the material from "Gender Differences in Psychology" that refer to manifestations of sexually dimorphic adaptations ("sex differences"). That is the topic of this article.

The "Gender differences" article focuses on something different: traits that are presumed to be sexually monomorphic, and/or, on non-biologically grounded theories that gender differences are not manifestations of evolved sexually dimoprhic traits at all, but are instead purely "socially constructed" (e.g., social construction of gender difference, a derivative of social construction of reality which is a philosophical "theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory").

These terms "sex differences" and "gender differences," as defined above, are very important distinctions. The former is based primarily on biological/evolutionary science, the later is based primarily on the humanities, philosophy and politics. Without these distinctions the topic is thoroughly confused (see Sex and gender distinction). Memills (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I read the article more thoroughly and I have to concede there are topics in it that should not be mentioned here. On the other hand there is quite a bit that I feel would be better placed in this article than that one. Maybe instead of a merge we move some of the biology/sex content here? I think the most important point is really to make a clear distinction so that the articles are separated properly, so that when new editors come along that they are aware of both articles and don't duplicate or misplace content. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, fine by me. Memills (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Split intelligence section & sex vs. gender differences

The intelligence section currently dominates the article, and I would suggest it be summarized and a new article: Sex differences in intelligence be created to house the bulk of that article.
I also suggest we rename a number of the sub-articles to this one as they are also on sex differences, instead of having to concern gender. For example:

• Gender differences in human memory

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I will go ahead an rename the article Gender differences in human memory to "Sex Differences in Human Memory". Memills (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I split the articles, and attempted to write a short lede for the article, as well as a summary for this article. As the split content is rather large I would appreciate if anyone went back and looked through what I have written, and to see if I have omitted anything. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

CFCF -- You might find this brief summary article of particular interest for additional material: Evolved Sex Differences in Modern Context by David C. Geary. Memills (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on administrators' noticeboard

As I prepared to resume editing this article after a phase of research reading, I discover that another editor here has a dismaying notice on his talk page and an active discussion of a topic ban for editor conduct that I suppose would include this article in its scope. It seems only fair to let editors who watch this page know that these discussions are occurring, so that you may comment according to what you have observed. On my part, I hope all of us are able to establish a collaborative atmosphere for using the best reliable secondary sources for updating this article and other articles on related topics, which are very important. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Too technical tag

A "too technical" tag was added to the article by Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) (apparently in response to this post at the WikiProject Feminism Talk page). The tag rationale suggested that we " ...need to define some of these terms as go along and remind people later in article; important topic that needs to be comprehensible to readers". @Carolmooredc: it would be helpful if you could identify which specific terms / prose you believe need further definition or clarification. Thanks. Memills (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously there is a difference in philosophy among editors in how much you have to define our terms. Below is first two paragraphs as an examples The ones in italics could use a definition. The ones underlined sound like poorly written or inaccurate reflections of sources which just further confuse the issues; if the sources don't write well, we should try to improve them. (If there is a POV as to whether biological or social factors greater in influencing psychology, only those extremely familiar with the issue and terminology could figure it out. I'm not sure myself, though I have a few hunches on a few points which aren't worth debating. I'd like to learn from the article but find it difficult.)

Psychological sex differences are sexually dimorphic adaptations, or specifically their behavioral manifestations. Such differences are hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection.[1][2] In contrast, the term "gender differences" refers to traits and behaviors that are presumed to be sexually monomorphic and due to differential socialization (see social construction of gender difference). For further differentiation of these terms see sex and gender distinction.

Numerous factors may influence the development of sex differences including genetics and epigenetics,[3] differences in brain structure and function;[4] hormones,[5] or differences in psychological traits such as emotion, motivation, cognition, and sexuality.[6][7][8][9][10] Differential socialization of males and females may decrease or increase the magnitude of sex differences.[9][11][12] Sex differences may manifest distally as cultural phenomena.[6][13] Since all behavior is phenotypical (occurs as a result of complex interactions between nature and nurture) researchers are especially interested in investigating how biology and environment interact to produce differences between the sexes.[1][11][12][14]

Note the last sentence actually does define terms and makes sense since it is written in plain English. That's all I have to say. Take it as you please. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've revised the lede for (hopefully) greater clarity (and I removed the tag). Memills (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The resulting revision was very messy, and I think the lede as it is is pretty decent in scope. What would be needed is for it to be more explanatory. I.e. we can't just add a section above everything else, but need to bake in the new info into the text where it fits best. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the lede was in pretty good shape before too, and, I don't mind your reverting it back to the previous version. However, some folks likely don't know much about sexual selection, an adaptation vs. a byproduct, phenotypes, epigenetics, the difference between a sexually dimorphic vs. sexually monomorphic adaptation, or distal manifestations of underlying adaptations (such as overt behavior). Unless they click through to the internal links for these terms, they will likely be a tad lost. Perhaps these terms and concepts can be explored in a new "Introduction" subsection where these basic concepts and terminology are elucidated. Memills (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

How about a simple English first paragraph and a more detailed second paragraph that uses the big words. At this point few readers who don't have knowledge (and probably opinions) will get past the first paragraph and they'll read other articles they find when they search "psychological differences between the sexes". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've created a Introduction subsection to help to clarify some of the terminology and concepts. Memills (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think too many people will get past the lead to read it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the jargon wouldn't be that hard to replace with plain English: "differential socialization" => "differences in socialization", "manifest distally as cultural phenomena" => "influence cultural phenomena", etc. Kaldari (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. I came here more to read the article than translate it into comprehensible English. So many articles needing work, so little time. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

---

Refs from above

Scope implied by lead

The new lead seems to clearly imply that the scope of this article is limited to psychological phenomena that are unambiguously biological in origin, i.e. "sexually dimorphic adaptations... hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection." It suggests that any psychological phenomena not proven to involve biology would instead reside at a hypothetical gender differences in psychology article. There are two problems with this:

1. It doesn't reflect the actual scope of the article content. For example, we discuss differences in gambling behavior, suicide rates, and phobias without any mention of biological factors. Indeed, gender differences in suicide are generally posited to be due to differences in gender roles, so I'm not sure it would warrant mention in an article limited to a predominantly biological scope.
2. Most of the other "sex difference" articles do not use the sex/gender distinction: Sex differences in crime, Sex differences in education, Sex differences in leadership, Sex differences in religion, Sex differences in social capital, etc. Sex differences in human physiology is an obvious exception.
3. It would be a bit ridiculous to have a separate gender differences in psychology article as it would largely cover the same material.
4. You link to the article gender psychology with a definition that is completely at odds with the definition given in that article. Specifically, that article mostly treats gender and sex as equivalent.

Instead of trying to explain a gender/sex distinction that isn't reflected in the article body (and probably doesn't need to be), why don't we keep the definition more general, for example "Sex differences in psychology are differences between the mental functions and behaviors of men and women." That would also make the lead a lot less jargony. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The focus of the article should be the distinction of differences that are truly innate, and doing what you suggest makes this an articles of psychological differences between the sexes, regardless of whether they are innate or not. I agree we should focus on the innate/learned distinction. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a very tricky and easily misunderstood area of investigation.

The nature vs. nurture distinction (innate vs. learned) dichotomy is scientifically incorrect and it is quite misleading, especially to laypersons. All behavior is a result of the combined effects of both biology and environment/culture. The effects of each cannot be disentangled for an individual (e.g., this behavior is 80% genetic / 20% environmental). (The Heritability Index can do this statistically for differences between groups, but that too is more often than not terribly misunderstood by non-specialists -- and even by some folks who should know better.)

The only scientifically useful distinction is whether differences between the sexes on a trait are likely (a) the result of adaptations that are sexually dimorphic ("sex differences" -- the focus of this article) or are (b) due to differential socialization of sexually monomorphic adaptations ("gender differences" -- the focus of the social construction of gender difference article). The former perspective presumes that effect of genetics and hormones, especially during early fetal development, result in the development of neurological differences between the sexes. These brain sex differences interact with environmental/cultural factors to predispose behavioral differences between the sexes.

However, right now, there is a significant paradigmatic split in academia. Most scientists -- biologists, zoologists, ethologists, evolutionists, cognitive- and neuro-scientists, behavioral geneticists and psychologists -- accept that sex differences in certain traits are a function of evolved psychological sexual dimorphisms that interact with the environment/culture. Postmodernists and social constructionists -- including many sociologists, cultural anthropologists and feminists -- do not accept the idea of evolved sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations, or, believe that their influence is minimal and can be largely ignored (see social construction of gender difference which suggests that " ...society and culture create gender roles... Stronger versions argue that the differences in behaviour between men and women are entirely social conventions...").

Trying to merge these two conflicting paradigms into one article, at this point in history, would be like trying to mix oil and water. Each deserves a separate article. Memills (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A few replies to Memill's points above:

• "The nature vs. nurture distinction (innate vs. learned) dichotomy". The nature vs. nurture article mentions that this strict dichotomy is an old fashioned view and the lead mentions "relative importance" of innate qualities vs. an personal experiences. I don't think there's much disagreement that "All behavior is a result of the combined effects of both biology and environment/culture."
• However, after rejecting dichotomy above, you seem to posit one: "The only scientifically useful distinction is whether differences between the sexes on a trait are due to "sex differences" or socialization.
• You write "there is a significant paradigmatic split in academia. Most scientists -- biologists, zoologists, ethologists, evolutionists, cognitive- and neuro-scientists, behavioral geneticists and psychologists -- accept that sex differences in certain traits are a function of evolved psychological sexual dimorphisms that interact with the environment/culture." A reference that says so would be nice.
• Again, you emphasize dichotomies, contrasting that with Postmodernists and social constructionists who do not accept the idea of evolved sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations" - and oppose "Trying to merge these two conflicting paradigms into one article."
• Those of us who do not think in terms of dichotomies and assume there are a range of science-based views both on individual traits and the sum of those traits doubtless would agree that the article should reflect those differing views and not state there is some final conclusion, unless there is overwhelming evidence of that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is a tricky subject, one that bedevils thinking because we are so used to and comfortable with the biology vs. environment distinction. To respond to your questions / concerns (I refer to them below by bullet point number):

2. "However, after rejecting dichotomy above, you seem to posit one: "The only scientifically useful distinction is whether differences between the sexes on a trait are due to "sex differences" or socialization."

Oh, no. You misunderstood me. I said the distinction is between sexually dimorphic vs. monomorphic adaptations. Big difference. It is not a distinction between biology and socialization. Both types of adaptations require environmental input. (See Symons, "The Evolution of Human Sexuality" re the monomorphic / dimorphic distinction.)

3. References

Not sure if you are looking for refs re the academic split, or, for the acceptance that psychological traits can be subject to sexual selection. Here are just two books with overviews of these issues for the intelligent layperson. "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker reviews the former. For the latter, see in particular, "The Mating Mind" by Geoffrey Miller. Of course, there are many more technical treatments too -- e.g., "Sex Differences" by Linda Mealey, "Male/Female" by David Geary, "Why Sex Matters" by Bobbi Low.

4. "Again, you emphasize dichotomies" (between social constructionists and nature-nurture interactionists).

Same thing as the academic split, above. I'm not sure what you mean by "emphasize" -- I'm pointing out two major conflicting theoretical paradigms.

5. "Those of us who do not think in terms of dichotomies and assume there are a range of science-based views both on individual traits and the sum of those traits..."

With respect to the "nature vs. nurture" issue, that is incorrect. The scientific issue is settled: behavior is always a function of both biology and environment. I know of no serious biological or psychological scientist who would stake their reputation by stating otherwise (tho it may take a bit of prodding for a few). However, the "nature vs. nurture" issue is still debated among those who eschew biological science, including social constructionists and some philosophers, sociologists, feminists, cultural anthropologists, etc. Memills (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Memills: I totally agree with your arguments, but the current lead paragraph does not reflect them. The current lead paragraph suggests that nature and nurture are entirely separate: "Psychological sex differences... are hypothesized to be products of the evolutionary process of sexual selection... 'gender differences' refers to traits and behaviors that are... due to differences in socialization." Doesn't that make it sound like they are completely distinct phenomena rather than an interdependent feedback loop? If, as you say, the effects of each cannot be disentangled, why is the distinction emphasized so strongly in the lead? Kaldari (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't think your characterization above of the nature vs. nurture debate is entirely accurate. It entirely omits the argument that culture drives sexual selection and thus evolution of sex differences. That is the theory that many biological anthropologists subscribe to. As Frank B. Livingstone explains, "I do not believe that a genetic or physiological change will occur first and then cause social or behavioral change. In fact, just the opposite, the behavior or way of life of a population determines the fitness values of the genotypes, and this changes the genetic characteristics of the population." Regardless, this is just another example of how the nature vs. nurture divide is an outdated concept. Kaldari (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll note for the record that I think the article currently titled Nature versus nurture would be a better article if it followed its own sources (look at the first three references carefully) and were retitled to Nature and nurture, which is now one of several redirect terms that lead to that article. One problem at a time when it comes to fixing Wikipedia. Here I'll simply note that the learned discussion among several editors here adequately demonstrates that it is by no means easy to define where sex differences end and gender differences begin. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree @WeijiBaikeBianji: -- the "nature vs. nurture" article should be renamed to "nature and nurture," and asap. I disagree that "it is by no means easy to define where sex differences end and gender differences begin," at least conceptually (empirically it is a bit of a challenge tho) if one uses the distinction between sexually dimorphic and monomorphic traits.

@Kaldari:, I see your point how the lead could be misread. However, a close reading of it is accurate. The key terms are "dimorphic" vs. "monomorophic. " (I will bold these in the lead to help them stand out). Both refer to biological adaptations. In the phrase "'gender differences' refers to traits and behaviors that are... due to differences in socialization" -- you left out the key part of the sentence that came after the ellipses: "presumed to be sexually monomorphic."

Imagine a psychological trait that is monomorphic (say, aptitude to solve arithmetic problems) -- any average group differences between males and females on that variable would be due to differential socialization. That is not to say that biology had no part in the behavior -- since all behavior a complex interweaving of biology and environment. We would call this a "gender difference," but not because it is implied that the behavior is not biologically based (it is). Instead it is because the difference is due to differential socialization of a presumably monomorphic trait.

Imagine a sexually dimorphic trait, say proclivity for engaging in physical risk-taking. Even monomorphic (the same) socialization of males and females would not equalize the behavior. To summarize: all behaviors are due to biology and environment. Some behavioral differences between females and males are due to traits that are either sexually monomorphic or dimorphic. Socialization impacts both to produce the behavior. But if the underlying adaptation is monomorphic, then we can say that that the average difference in the behavior of males and females must be due to differential socialization. Again, the terminology is tricky, and it is very easy to slip back into old, comfortable biology vs. environment dichotomies.

I've re-written part of the lead to (hopefully) make this distinction clear:

"In contrast, the term "gender differences" refers average group differences between males and females that are presumably based on sexually monomorphic (the same between the sexes) biological adaptations. Thus those differences are presumed to be due to differences in socialization..."

Re "culture drives sexual selection and thus evolution of sex differences" -- I think the direction of causality can go either way, or be bidirectional. Virtually all animals display sexually dimorphic behaivors, yet they have no culture. Human culture is itself a distal manifestation of evolved human nature (our species-wide set of psychological adaptations) -- another reason why separating biology and culture is especially problematic. However, gene-culture coevolution is certainly likely in humans -- see in particular the article about it titled dual inheritance theory. But, that does not mean that "culture drives sexual selection" exclusively -- non-cultural variables have an impact as well. Memills (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Most behaviors actually involve a broad range of biological adaptations, some dimorphic, some monomorphic. There are very few cases where a behavior is going to be linked to only one specific adaptation. Aggression, for example, covers a large range of behaviors and adaptations. How can we classify it as either a "sexual difference" or a "gender difference"? It's almost certainly both. Same for empathy, memory, sexuality, intelligence, depression, etc. Basically everything mentioned in this article. Why do we want to start the article off by explaining a distinction that is practically irrelevant and typically impossible to determine? Why not simply state the current mainstream view that psychological differences between men and women involve both biological and sociological factors (without trying to get too detailed about the specifics)? Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point.

Let's pose the same question for physiological traits. Is it important to know if a physiological trait is sexually dimorphic or monomorphic? I would say it is very important, both in the sense of understanding why there is a dimorphism, and, how it works differently in each sex. In medicine it certainly is important for a surgeon to know about the dimorphisms of the reproductive system... (ok, that was a low blow, but I couldn't resist... ;-). Surgeons should know about say, size differences in blood vessels in the heart. Pharmacologists should know about sexual dimorphisms that affect drug metabolism and action. Anesthesiologists should know about sex differences in sedation and pain management, etc.

With respect to behavior, if boys are generally less verbally fluent, and have more difficulty learning to read, that may have implications for specific learning methods. If males are generally more sexually indiscriminate and eager compared to females, especially with strangers and recent acquaintances, that might have important implications for each sex in understanding sexual conflict during the early phases dating.

Those are just a couple of practical reasons. There is also just the pure science. Why are some adaptations sexually dimorphic and some are not (e.g., sexual selection)? How does socialization interact with sexually dimorphic adaptations?

Re the claim that dimorphic/monomorphic "distinction that is practically irrelevant and typically impossible to determine" -- probably no surprise I strongly disagree on both counts. It is very relevant to know whether the greater rate of depression in women is due to underlying brain differences (dimorphism) or, if a monomorphic trait, socialization. And, the question of whether a trait is dimorphic or monomorphic is indeed subject to empirical investigation. There are many sex differences that we can be very confident are due to sexually dimorphic adaptations (both from theory and empirical data) -- tendency toward physical aggression, "motherese," sexual caution vs. indiscrimination, physical risk-taking, parental investment, the criteria used for mate choice, motives for sexual infidelity, etc.

For those who are interested in promoting sexual equality, the most practical reason for understanding sex differences is to get the underlying causality correct. Interventions based on flawed conceptions are not likely to work well. If one thinks that all we have to do to make the sexes equal is to treat them the same (due to the erroneous idea that all the differences are just due to differential socialization), imho, they are likely to be disappointed in the eventual outcomes. Some fear that acknowledging sexually dimorphic adaptations is the equivalent of giving them a stamp of moral approval (the naturalistic fallacy). It isn't. However, we must also beware of the moralistic fallacy lest we close our eyes to what we do not wish to see. Memills (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep bringing up this strawman argument. Everyone in this discussion agrees with you (including the feminists like myself). Anyway, back to the point. Yes, it's very relevant to researchers to investigate all causes of psychological differences in humans. It is not, however, well-delineated enough (or important enough) to base the scope of this article on it. Regardless of whether we have any evidence that gambling behavior, for example, is related to some dimorphic adaptation, I still think we should keep it in this article. It's a difference between the behavior of men and women (which is what most people are going to expect this article to be about). Why don't we make the introductory paragraph more general (both so it is easier to understand and so it doesn't suggest that the scope is limited to "dimorphic adaptations") and add the discussion of dimorphic/monomorphic, sex/gender, nature/nurture to the new introduction section since it already covers some of that material? I think we basically agree on most of these points we just need to organize the article a bit better (which you've already made some progress on). Kaldari (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You suggest that the sexually dimorphic vs. monomorphic distinction isn't "well-delineated enough (or important enough) to base the scope of this article on it." I think we just disagree on this. This is a foundational principle in biology (both proximate and evolutionary), behavioral genetics and psychology. There are several articles here about it: Sexual dimorphism, Sexual dimorphism in non-human primates, sexual dimorphism measures, and sexual selection. Not only is it important, but without that conceptual distinction, the "sex" vs. "gender" distinction makes no sense (see sex and gender distinction, since otherwise it refers to a false "nature vs. nurture" distinction.

In addition, there are the two major conflicting theoretical paradigms at play. One conceptualizes "sex differences" as sexually dimorphic adaptations. The other assumes sexually monomorphic psychological adaptations (e.g., the brains of women and men are virtually identical structurally and functionally) and conceptualizes "gender differences" as due almost exclusively to differential socialization (see Cordelia Fine's book "Delusions of Gender" and Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book "Brain Storm").

As I mentioned above, "trying to merge these two conflicting paradigms into one article, at this point in history, would be like trying to mix oil and water. Each deserves a separate article." Memills (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Memills: Yes, there are conflicting theoretical paradigms on the fringes. But the mainstream view (in biology, sociology, and even modern feminist theory) is essentially the same, so there is no reason to have separate articles. Nor would it be practically possible to do so. The distinction between such paradigms isn't well defined enough for us to be able to cleanly split the article in two. There's a huge spectrum of different views. We can't create separate articles for every theory. Kaldari (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Also I don't understand why you are completely mischaracterizing my arguments. I completely agree with what you are saying (despite the fact that you keep putting a strawman argument in my mouth). There is no reason for us to put any fringe views about nature vs. nurture in this article. I have been arguing against that the entire time. The point I'm making is the same one you've been making: "The effects of each cannot be disentangled for an individual (e.g., this behavior is 80% genetic / 20% environmental)." For example, we cannot say in this article "differences in gambling behavior are affected by gene X which accounts for 35% of the difference" and in a separate article say "differences in gambling behavior are affected by socialization X which accounts for 65% of the difference". All we can say is that "the difference in gambling behavior between men and women is X". The lead you have written is accurate and informative. The only argument I'm making is that the lead does not properly describe the contents of the article (as required by WP:LEAD). Thus I think, at the very least, we should insert a more general sentence at the beginning rather than a discussion of dimorphic vs. monomorphic adaptations (which we can include afterwards). Kaldari (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither mischaracterizing your args or presenting straw men. Again, I believe we simply disagree on this.

On the issue of "nature-nurture interactionism" everyone can agree -- that isn't the point. To repeat, from the perspective of most scientists, the dimorphic vs. monomorphic distinction is at the core of the very definition of sex differences. Further, there is a huge gulf, a paradigmatic split, in academia re this issue. To suggest that the main stream views about sex differences in biology and sociology are "essentially the same" is stunningly incorrect. The former suggests that "sex differences" are manifestations of evolved sexually dimorphic adaptations that are the products of the process of sexual selection; the latter suggests that "gender differences" are socially constructed, and, that virtually all psychological traits are sexually monomorphic. There is literally a massive body of literature that assumes the correctness one of these theoretical paradigms, and dismisses the other. Memills (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(←) Show me a single mainstream secondary source that argues that all psychological differences are based on genetic differences or a single mainstream secondary source that argues that no psychological differences are influenced by genetic differences. Just because some biologists and sociologists disagree about which is more important to emphasize doesn't mean that the disciplines completely dismiss each other. I checked two sociology textbooks (the only ones I could preview on Google Books), to see what they had to say on the matter:

• Sociology, 10th edition (Jon Shepard): "In this light it is reasonable to credit both biology and culture for gender differences."
• Sociology in Our Times, 10th edition (Diana Kendall): "Although biological differences between men and women are very important... social and cultural processes, not biological 'givens', are most important in defining what females and males are, what they should do, and what sorts of relations do or should exist between them."

The only biology textbook I could find that discusses the matter in relation to humans (and is previewable) was this one:

• Developmental Neurobiology (Greg Lemke): "These sexual dimorphisms in brain morphology may contribute to gender differences in behavior and the prevalence of some mental illnesses. Very little is known about how sex differences in the human brain may be related to differences in behavior."

None of these seem to be asserting that psychological differences are wholly dimorphic or monomorphic. I also looked at the two sources you cite for your lead paragraph. Unfortunately, one of them I can't preview, but the other one doesn't seem to agree with what it is being cited for:

• Sex Differences: "... psychological sex differences, like physical differences, are to a large extent a product of sexual selection... Like other sexual species we have sex-differentiated life-history strategies that predispose males and females to follow different paths and play different tactics during individual development. At the same time, the availability of play options is largely determined by culture and individual circumstances. Because cultural evolution is far faster than biological evolution, behaviors and roles will continue to change, but the fact of sex differences in behavior and roles will remain."

That source seems to be suggesting that changes in socialization may precede or occur independently of dimorphic adaptations, and that both are partially responsible for psychological sex differences. If even your own sources don't support a clean split, I don't understand how you can be so adamant that one exists (at least in modern mainstream secondary sources). Kaldari (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, everyone can (and should) agree that all behaviors are due to a combination of nature-nurture interaction. On this both biologists and sociologists should agree. That is not the issue here.

The issue is to what degree evolution, via the process of sexual selection, has produced sexually dimorphic adaptations in humans. Some species are extremely sexually dimorphic (elephant seals, peacocks, etc.), and others (except for reproductive organs) are much more sexually monomorphic (e.g., some bird species). The question here is to what degree is the human brain/mind sexually dimorphic, both in terms of number of traits and the degree of difference.

It is on this question that there is a major paradigmatic split. Many evolutionary and proximate biologists and psychologists suggest that human brain sexual dimorphisms are many and significant. These are due to the significantly different reproductive life histories of humans (and mammals in general) -- particularly in the vast sex differences in maximum potential reproductive rate (M>F) and assurance of genetic parentage (F>M). Given these differences, Donald Symons, who wrote The Evolution of Human Sexuality, stated decades ago that "I predict that no mammal will be found where males and females have identical brains." So far, none have.

Other academics who identify as social constructionists, particularly many sociologists, those in the field of "gender studies" and Women's Studies, cultural anthropologists, philosophers, etc., generally believe that the sexes have monomorphic brain/minds, or if there are brain dimorphims, they are relatively few in number and small. They argue that, given the assumption of 'equal' brains, the differences we see between the sexes are due wholly or primarily to differential socialization.

I agree that culture influences the behavioral manifestations of sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations -- it can magnify or reduce them. Again, that is not the point.

The relevant point here is that identifying which psychological traits are sexually dimorphic, and how and by to what degree, is an important research program. It is analogous to identifying physiological dimorphisms. Sure, the environment affects the body, but that does not negate the importance of identifying which body organs and functions are sexually dimorphic.

Again, re the academic split, consider this analogy. Imagine there was a group of academics who believed that (with the exception of reproductive organs) the body was sexually monomorphic, and that any physiological dimorphisms were due to differential socialization (e.g., that males are encouraged to exercise more, thus their greater upper body strength; that females are encouraged to eat more of a certain food type that presumably inhibits body hair growth, and so they are less hairy than men; that the height difference between the sexes is ultimately due to socialization factors, etc.). This group of academics might be called "body social constructionists" -- they reject the idea of body dimorphisms, or believe that they are so small in number and weak that any body differences are due ultimately to differential socialization. Of course, no one takes that position in physiology.

But many scholars in certain academic disciplines do take an analogous position with respect to psychology (a perspective that really got traction with Margaret Mead's Male and Female and John Money's (1973) Man and Woman, Boy and Girl, and more recently Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference and Rebecca M. Jordan-Young Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences).

They have been at odds with the academic group that takes the opposite perspective (e.g.., Donald Symons The Evolution of Human Sexuality, Daly and Wilson's Sex, Evolution and Behavior, David Geary's Male/Female, Linda Mealey's Sex Differences, David Buss' The Evolution of Desire, Bobbi Low's Why Sex Matters, Matt Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, Maryanne Fisher, et al., Evolution's Empress: Darwinian Perspectives on the Nature of Women, Peter Gray and Justin Garcia's Evolution and Human Sexual Behavior). Intellectually, these two groups of scholars have been at each other's throats for many decades. This clash of paradigms has been fought in many scholarly articles (too numerous to list), and, the overall paradigmatic debate has been reviewed by Segerstråle (2000), Defenders of the Truth, Barkow (2005), Missing the Revolution and Steven Pinker (2003) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Memills (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Male and Female was written in 1949 so I'm going to skip that one. Man and Woman, Boy and Girl is 40 years old and largely discredited. Delusions of Gender and Brain Storm are popular works pretty much entirely devoted to criticizing specific examples of bad science. Neither claims to have solved the riddle of what actually causes differences in psychology between the sexes. Please show me a modern, mainstream secondary source that states that sexual dimorphism has no effect on psychology. A generalized source such as a textbook would be especially useful. (I also haven't seen any evidence that any biologists believe that all differences in psychology are due to underlying dimorphic adaptations.) The fact that scientists are arguing over the details shouldn't be surprising. They wouldn't be scientists otherwise. Your claims that there is a fundamental disagreement as to whether sexual dimorphism has an effect on psychology just doesn't hold water though. The disagreement is a disagreement of emphasis, not fundamental existence. Kaldari (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You state: "I also haven't seen any evidence that any biologists believe that all differences in psychology are due to underlying dimorphic adaptations." They don't. As I noted above several times, they believe some psychological adaptations are sexually dimorphic and others are monomorphic. Sex differences research is specifically designed to find out which male/female differences are due to underlying dimorphic adaptations and which are not.

"Please show me a modern, mainstream secondary source that states that sexual dimorphism has no effect on psychology. A generalized source such as a textbook would be especially useful." Note above that I stated that social constructionists believe either that human brains/minds are monomorphic, or, if there are dimorphisms, that they are relatively few and weak. Here are a few quotes from textbooks that either directly make such assertions, or imply them. These are just from a few women's studies textbooks -- many similar quotes can be culled from textbooks from other disciplines, including sociology, cultural anthropology, gender studies, etc.

* "Another concern is the claim that gender differences have evolved over time, which implies that gender differences are inevitable and unchangeable. Biology then becomes an excuse for accepting differences and not advocating for social change." (p. 117) Rider, E. A. (2005). Our voices: Psychology of women (2nd ed.).

* "Cultural factors may have overridden the influence of evolutionary theory on sexual behavior." (p. 144) -- Helgeson, V. S. (2012). The psychology of gender (4th ed.).

* "These theories suggest ways in which behavior is grounded in biology, but other theories illustrate how we transcend our biology and respond to a multitude of social forces." (p. 135) -- Lips, H. M. (2006). A new psychology of women: Gender, culture, and ethnicity (3rd ed.).

* "Models of the body as a machine producing gender differences are mainly advanced by men, and have often been used to defend the existing gender order, to ridicule feminism or feminist ideas about gender roles." (p. 53) -- Connell, R. (2009). Gender: A short introduction (2nd ed.).

* "Evolutionary psychology contends that women‘s and men‘s brains have evolved in different ways that furnish modern humans with 'hard-wired gender differences.'" (p. 1) and " ...proposes that human evolutionary history has equipped people with preprogrammed patterns of behavior that differ a great deal between women and men. These theorists tend to rationalize the disadvantaged social position of women by citing biological programming as the source of differences. Naomi Weisstein (1982, p. 41) summarized this position by saying, 'Men are biologically suited to their life of power, pleasure, and privilege, and women must accept subordination, sacrifice, and submission. It‘s in the genes. Go fight city hall.‘" (p. 433) -- Brannon, L. (2011) Gender: Psychological perspectives (6th ed.)

* "And if we believe in evolution, essentialism backs us into the corner of arguing that privilege and oppression are actually a positive adaptation, that societies organized in this way will thrive more than those that aren‘t" p. 52. -- Johnson, A. G. (2005). Gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchical legacy (2nd ed.)

* "Feminist scientific critiques center on the fact that sociobiology and similar evolutionary approaches are androcentric perspectives, are often presented in deterministic ways, and make faulty assumptions about human behavior and disregard well-documented research about animals." (p. 25) -- Lindsey, L. (2011). Gender roles: A sociological perspective (5th ed.).

Obviously, the academic paradigmatic split is still here, and the gulf is quite wide.

Memills (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"You state: 'I also haven't seen any evidence that any biologists believe that all differences in psychology are due to underlying dimorphic adaptations.' They don't. As I noted above several times, they believe some psychological adaptations are sexually dimorphic and others are monomorphic. Sex differences research is specifically designed to find out which male/female differences are due to underlying dimorphic adaptations and which are not."

That's not what the current lead paragraph says. The current lead says "Psychological sex differences are sexually dimorphic (different) adaptations, and, their behavioral manifestations. Such differences are hypothesized to be products of the evolutionary process of sexual selection." Either you no longer agree with those lead sentences, or the wording is very confusing.

All of those quotes are either (1) third-party characterizations of critics (the first and last), (2) arguments that socialization is more important (the 2nd and 3rd), or (3) criticisms of biological determinism/essentialism (the 4th, 5th and 6th). None of them state that sexual dimorphism has no effect on psychology.

Also, you still haven't responded to any of my other points at the beginning of this thread (rather than just point #3). What are you're thoughts on the other issues I mentioned? Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A proposal for a new lead paragraph

I would like to propose the following text to replace the current lead paragraph (leaving the 2nd paragraph as is):

The field of psychology has identified numerous differences between the mental functions and behaviors of men and women. These differences are created by a complex interplay of biological, social, and cultural processes. They are influenced both by differences in how the sexes are socialized and by genetic differences created through the evolutionary process of sexual selection.

This text avoids the sex/gender distinction and presents a non-technical consensus view. Yes, there are some fringe or outdated sources that may not agree with this, but I think it neutrally presents the common ground that most modern psychologists are operating from. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait... you asked me to provide some textbook examples of social contructionist perspectives on gender differences. I did. Now you suggest that they are "fringe" or "outdated" (all published in the last decade)?

The sources you presented argued for the importance of social construction. Social construction is included in my proposed wording. The viewpoint that I'm suggesting is fringe is the viewpoint that either there are no dimorphic adaptations between the sexes or they have no effect whatsoever on psychology. None of the sources you presented take that viewpoint. (If you think I'm mistaken, please let me know.) Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You stated earlier, referring to the books disputing brain differences between males and females that: "Neither claims to have solved the riddle of what actually causes differences in psychology between the sexes." Actually, we do know what causes sexually dimorphic brain/mind adaptations: the process of sexual selection. Without it, the brains of males and females would be monomorphic.

I agree. How does that relate to my proposal? I wasn't arguing that we don't know what causes sexually dimorphic brain/mind adaptations. I was arguing that these two books do not assert that socialization is 100% responsible for all sex differences in psychology. Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I have stated above:

On the issue of "nature-nurture interactionism" most all scientists (but not social constructionists) agree. That isn't the point; it is almost banal in its generality. From the perspective of most scientists, it is the dimorphic vs. monomorphic distinction that is at the core of the very definition of what constitutes a "sex difference."

Jettisoning that distinction from the lead would eviscerate it in several ways:

*The lead would fail to connect the foundational, underlying theory, sexual selection, to its products: sexually dimorphic adaptations.

*It is that distinction that differentiates this article from those on gender and social construction of gender difference -- which reject or minimize the importance of sexual selection (as clearly noted in some of the textbook quotes above).

Why do you wish to delete this important distinction from the lead? You have previously self-identified as a feminist. As illustrated by the textbook quotes above, many feminists are hostile or skeptical of the very idea of sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations (and those sentiments are reflected in the gender and social construction of gender difference articles). The sex and gender distinction isn't a word play using synonyms. It reflects a very real academic paradigmatic split.

The topic of this article is "sex differences," which are defined as sexual dimorphisms by most scientists. That deserves prominent mention in the lead. Memills (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to add a sentence specifically about dimorphic adaptations and sexual selection. We should not imply, however, that this is the main cause for all of the differences discussed in this article (as the current wording suggests, although that may not have been your intention). I agree there is a split (or rather a spectrum) of views, but I strongly disagree that there is no common ground whatsoever in the mainstream views of biologists, sociologists, and feminists. As you said yourself most biologists do not believe that 100% of psychological differences are related to dimorphic adaptions, nor do most sociologists or feminists believe that dimorphic adaptions are completely irrelevant to psychology. In many cases, you seem to be conflating opposition to biological determinism with a more extreme POV. Saying that biology is not the determiner of culture is very different than saying that biology has no influence whatsoever on culture (which is a fringe POV). I'm happy to add in more wording about sexual selection, genetics, and dimorphic adaptations, though. Do you have any specific suggestions? Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, virtually by definition, social constructionists (which includes most sociologists and gender feminists) do believe that "dimorphic adaptions are completely irrelevant to psychology." Or, if they exist, they are few in number and weak compared to cultural influences. This is exemplified by a couple of the quotes from textbooks, above: "Cultural factors may have overridden the influence of evolutionary theory on sexual behavior." and "...we transcend our biology and respond to a multitude of social forces." The social constructionism article similarly states: "...gender, as currently understood, is not an inevitable result of biology... (this) may mean that our current understanding of gender is harmful, and should be modified or eliminated...". The social construction of gender difference article states that 'strong social constructionism' asserts that " ...differences in behaviour between men and women are entirely social conventions...".

So, the academic split isn't between biological determinists (there are none) vs. cultural determinists. The split is between nature-nurture interactionists vs. cultural determinists (i.e., social constructionists).

However, despite our different perspectives re this, I am certainly open to working with you in the spirit of WP collaboration.

How about the following for the first para of the lead. I think it reads a bit more easily, but, still gets the main points:

The field of psychology has identified numerous differences between the mental functions and behaviors of men and women. These differences are created by a complex interplay of biological, developmental, and cultural processes. An important objective of sex differences research is to identify which psychological traits are manifestations of sexually dimorphic (different) psychological adaptations. Sexually dimorphic adaptations (such as height or physical aggressiveness) are the products of the evolutionary process of sexual selection. Research to determine if a trait is sexually dimorphic or monomorphic is often conducted by biologists, neuro-scientists, and evolutionary psychologists. However, there is a conflicting theoretical paradigm, called social constructionism, which suggests that male/female brains are sexually monomorphic (the same), and that gender differences are virtually entirely due to differences in socialization (see: social construction of gender difference). Scholarship based on this theoretical paradigm is often conducted by sociologists, cultural anthropologists and philosophers. For further differentiation of the terms "sex" and "gender" see: sex and gender distinction.

Memills (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

>"biological determinists (there are none)"

How about Steven Goldberg (who is ironically a sociologist)?

I think most of your wording is OK, although I would suggest changing "virtually entirely due" to "mostly due", as I think "mostly" is the more commonly held viewpoint (per the social construction of gender difference article). I still think it overly emphasizes the more extreme points of view (even books like Delusions of Gender acknowledge that there are some well-established dimorphisms in the human brain). In the interests of reaching consensus, however, I'm willing to compromise and move ahead with something similar to this. At the very least, I think this wording is much less confusing. Kaldari (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Even Goldberg talks about biological "tendencies" rather than invariant determinants here: "Specifiable hereditary psychophysiological differences between males and females engender in males a more-easily-released tendency for dominance behavior." So he's not a biological determinist. But, he would likely argue that the psychological sexual dimorphism with regard to the desire for status seeking / dominance is so large that typical cultural variability is insufficient to swamp it. I doubt he is suggesting that this is a good thing. Nature is bloody unfair and cruel, imho.

I appreciate the debate, and, your willingness to collaborate and compromise. I'll go ahead an incorporate your suggestions above, and revise the lead. Memills (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

PDF link for the sourced reference

https://tip.duke.edu/about/research/intelligence_article.pdf

additive viewpoints

Below are some suggestions to add more viewpoints and information to the paper. I cited where all the information I list is coming from. 1.)Under the personality section of the document, it could be useful to add that females select for a consistent predictable manor in males. This selection is especially important in long term relationships, because the female can predict how the male’s parental abilities will effect the offspring and can conform her own parental abilities to accommodate the male’s, so the offspring are adequately cared for. If the female has to constantly reevaluate the male’s parental ability it becomes very costly for her; as she would constantly have to adjust her level of caring for the offspring. This type of sexual selection can account for sexually dimorphic personality traits in males an females. Schuett, W., T. Tregenza, S.R.X. Dall, 2009. Sexual Selection and animal Personality. Biological Reviews 85: 217-246. 2.)Under the biology section, and possibly included in the hormones subsection, the mention of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) can be addressed as a factor in how women select men with "good genes". The MHC has a role in kin identification; thus allowing females to select mates that are not related to them, increasing genetic variation and avoiding the negative effects of inbreeding, it also confers resistance to certain diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis in humans. Dustin J. Penn believes that the MHC has the capability of effecting ordure and females are able to detect this. Penn, D.J., 2002. The Scent of Genetic Compatibility: Sexual Selection and the Major Histocompatibility Complex. Ethology 108: 1-21. 3.)To add to sexual behavior, Trivers pointed out that parental investment is the driving force of sexual selection. He also mentions sexual conflict which happens when sexual strategies of males and females differ, “when ostensibly cooperating in a joint task male and female interests are rarely identical “( Trivers, pg 174). It would be advantageous to describe what these different strategies are for males and females, and how they arose through either natural or sexual selection. Trivers, R.L., 1972. Parental Investment and Sexual Selection. Harvard University 153: 136-174. (Kmarth.9 (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC))

Updates

I have made changes to the readability and clarity of the article by removing a large amount of undue and superfluous material. Please see WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:MOS, WP:LEDE and do not revert without rational, that is against both WP:BRD as well as WP:RETAIN. If you find any individual edits made of the period of a month to be for better or please discuss. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You have made enormous not NPOV edits, without discussion and eliminating the discussion page. This is unacceptable Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You cannot assume all those one sided edits can become the new status. WP:RETAIN Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please point out which edits you are referring to? I've provided edit summaries for most of the large scale removals. Also there was a large degree of WP:OR and numerous WP:Primary sources here that I have removed. This is a high level scientific article and mny of the statements pertain to sexual and mental health, these fall under WP:MEDRS. It is unacceptable to have primary sources from 1970 in the article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll note for the record, without specifically commenting on this particular article and its recent edits, that many Wikipedia articles about human psychology are based far too much on old and primary sources rather than on current and secondary sources. That's partly because of what kind of sources are easier to look up with an Internet-connected personal computer, and partly because of what kind of sources ideological blogs and other point-of-view-pushing websites tend to link to. I fully agree that an article about this article's topic and about most topics related to psychology in general ought to be sourced in a manner that fits the Wikipedia content guideline about reliable sources for medical articles. I continue to have this article on my watchlist, and I will follow the editor discussion with interest, and with some of the better reliable secondary sources at hand. Thanks for discussing the rationale for various recent edits amicably here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 18:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a psychology article on basic research on sex differences. NOT a medicine related article, thus the criteria should not be medicinal.

The nature of the literature is that for many things the source used in the literature is older. Which is many times the still prevailing view Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that the general Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources says, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 21:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Archiving of this talk page

I see that this article talk page appears not to have automated archiving, and thus the old talk page sections are not being archived in the expected order (oldest discussions being archived first). I'll check to see if I can set up automated archiving here without messing up the existing page archives. The template used here is unfamiliar to me. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 21:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. It is not customary to restore archived material over and over again to illustrate a point. If there is any section of that material that is relevant to the currenty discussion please link or otherwise explain why you believe it is relevant. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Since CFCF has done massive editing WITHOUT discussion NOR consensus over the last month, the full talk page must stay intact to have all relevant discussions available for any editor to see.

Removing inconvenient talk pages and calling it "archive" is not credible, I am sorry Jazi Zilber (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that the only editor to question my edits is topic banned from this page and recently recieved at 1 year block. Yeah, I think that merits archiving. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The exact opposite. If pertinent editors are not active, it is obligatory that the talk page stays open. Not buried under the rug. What are you trying to hide? Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Lots of unsubstantiated gibberish by a men's rights activist who is indefinitely topic banned from editing this article – who violated the ban and subsequently got site-banned. So by definition–impossibly pertinent editor since he is disallowed from editing here. Go to the archive page if you want to read it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

talk page which is relevant should never be deleted. You should stop violating wikipedia policies and be dishonest. This is not welcome here Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice job with more lies (Not CFCF, to be clear). Someone deleted stuff under a single word excuse "blogs" when the link in reference had in its first line, the full link to the journal article.

OK. Now I put in the full journal article link inside as a reference. So this lie will not work anymore. Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, I am sure your intentions are moral and pure. You really believe in what you are doing as a mission.

But the guy that got entangled on the political entries is not writing gibberish. he gave here scholarly data.

You, while definitely good meaning, have refused to engage in the academic aspect and just removed all the talk page.

Good intentions, I am honestly sure you have. But lets keep this page intelligent and not subject to games.

Respectfully Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the relevant policy guidelines on proper sourcing and age of sources (among others WP:MEDRS, WP:SCIRS, WP:RS). Talk page content is archived, there is a link to the archive if you wish to peruse it. It is not relevant, that user is indefinitely banned from this article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS does not apply to this page -- it not a medical topic, it is an academic topic.

Content of the talk page is mostly relevant. Please adhere to WP policy properly. If you do not like the content. (mostly you failed to bring references when asked for. Any time you were asked to substantiate your claims usually you failed to.

Most of the talk page is proof of your losing arguments rather than anything else. So please do not cheat Jazi Zilber (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS applies to any health related topic, please read it. Psychology and psychiatry are such topics. WP:RS applied to all topics–we do not quote blogs, and we do not quote primary sources for spectacular results. There is a wealth of good literature, we don't need to resort to literature that is either 20 years old or of dubious quality.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, can you show why you think that academic topics in psychology fall under the medicine rules? Can you reference where have you got it in the link said?

The other links you gave explicitly allow primary sources.

Again, before you decide a source is dubious, you must discuss it first in talk page, otherwise it is not good faith Jazi Zilber (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No guideline forbids the use of primary sources–they just strongly discourage them and explain how they should not be used to promote original research. If we cherry-pick old primary sources from the 70's–90's instead of using modern quality reviews we misinterpret the state of the field. WP:MEDRS is written to broadly encompass health content, and beyond mentioning health it also links to Medical research – which includes the fields that this article touches upon. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 01:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's take the medicine thing off. This is not medicine.

If you have arguments about references, please specify their issues. Do not just throw away everything you want to with "old"

Do not cherry-pick WP rules to satisfy your local editing wishes Jazi Zilber (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Specify and discuss in detail with good literature if you wish to modify. Just do not do one liners or remove references by year Jazi Zilber (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In earlier discussions, you promised to bring literature. Then, you did not. yet, you mass edited with impunity Jazi Zilber (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never claimed this is medicine, but it falls under WP:MEDRS–something entirely different. References being old is enough reason to throw them out–the field has moved considerably since the early 2000s, let alone 1970. I'm not cherry-picking rules, I'm following applicable ones.

It is my intention once the article has been rid of old primary crap to expand it–but I am under no obligation to do so. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Odd claim

A claim was added that:

A 2014 meta analysis found multiple studies about sex differences in brain structures. Specifically in the Amygdala, hippocampus, planum temporale and insula. The meta analysis finds that "Most articles providing sex differences in volume are in the ‘mature’ category"

References

What "mature" means is far too unclear, take some time to explain what "mature" means (if anything).CFCF 💌 📧 21:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Also please cite like this:

<ref>{{Cite journal|title = A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure|url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24374381|journal = Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews|date = 2014-02-01|issn = 1873-7528|pmc = 3969295|pmid = 24374381|pages = 34-50|volume = 39|doi = 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.12.004|first = Amber N. V.|last = Ruigrok|first2 = Gholamreza|last2 = Salimi-Khorshidi|first3 = Meng-Chuan|last3 = Lai|first4 = Simon|last4 = Baron-Cohen|first5 = Michael V.|last5 = Lombardo|first6 = Roger J.|last6 = Tait|first7 = John|last7 = Suckling}}</ref>

References

It's very easy to do if you use the visual editor tool or any of other citation tools. Just enter the PMID, DOI or URL and hit cite, it will autogenerate all this. CFCF 💌 📧 22:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"Mature" refers to the quality of the various studies. Some studies are first time done, with softer level of evidence, while other studies are more "mature" is terms of evidence quality design etc. Jazi Zilber (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I was tired when I wrote that, I meant you need to explain what is considered mature. The way you are using the meta-analysis comments on the average level of maturity of the field. If we want to include that kind of statement we have to summarize the conclusions made in that source. We can't say that "evidence in this field is good" and then list a bunch of other sources, potentially ones that go against the conclusions of that article. You cite:

"Most articles providing sex differences in volume are in the ‘mature’ category"

What we don't know is whether the Wikipedia article presents "most" sources. If "most" means 80% of articles on the topic we could be very well be presenting the other 20%. The source is great, and I'm all for summarizing its conclusions, but we can't use it like this. CFCF 💌 📧 15:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@YechezkelZilber: That paragraph has nothing to do with Sex differences in psychology. I think you're looking for Sex differences in human physiology#Brain. As far as stating that studies showing volume differences in brain size are "mature", that hardly seems like news. The volume difference has been known since 1861. What would be more useful is knowing which structures show dimorphism, and what that specific dimorphism is. Kaldari (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)