Talk:Sex differences in intelligence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Variability discussion in History section

Given that I removed an entire paragraph, I wanted to provide some context for that change and an opportunity for discussion. The paragraph in question (diff) provided a historical critique of the use of variability to describe sex differences. I found it to be unnecessary for at least the following reasons:

1) The rest of the Historical Perspectives section is generally chronological and charts a broad, if very simplistic sketch of the topic leading into the 20th century, for context to the contemporary discussion which follows in the rest of the article. This section's final paragraph made a sudden diversion to the topic of variability (specifically, a critique of its emergence in evolutionary theory) lacked any segue from that preceding it, and was out of order chronologically. Variability as an aspect of the current intelligence debate does not come up until much later in the article, and the paragraph felt like it was directly rebutting something with no clear textual antecedent.

2) The source used for this historical critique was relatively thin, drawn from a total of two sentences in the linked article (available in its totality here at the moment). The claim in question -- that variability switched its gender association in response to evolutionary theory's evaluation of it as a positive trait -- is restricted entirely to two sentences at the top of page 17, which rely in turn on a single source for their support (the 1970s essay found here). That latter (chronologically prior) source refers to only one case of women being presumed for greater variability, not as a consensus in the form that the redacted paragraph presented it:

Prior to the formulation of evolutionary theory, there had been little concern with whether deviation from the average or “normal” occurred more frequently in either sex. One of the first serious discussions of the topic appeared in the early 19th century when the anatomist Meckel concluded on pathological grounds that the human female showed greater variability than the human male. (page 6)

Perhaps some discussion of the "variability hypothesis" and historical context would fit the article, but it seems that a dismissal in the form of the redacted paragraph is out of place and too swift.

Jmpedit (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: Jmpedit (talk · contribs) removed the content here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Lack of structured data

Although interesting and extended this article lack a methodically ordered set of data, e.g a list of different standard IQ tests and test results divided by field (not just some percentage, quote score with average, mean and deviation) divided by gender and both adjusted and not adjusted for instruction leve. This is what should be the core of such an article. (Unregistered User) 21:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.71.221 (talk)

The second sentence

The first sentence of this article is fine. The second sentence is incomprehensible – for instance, "allowed" by whom? And how can such a piece of gibberish require seven references? I can't imagine anyone figuring out what it is meant to mean, let alone agreeing or disagreeing with it. Maproom (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Redo the introduction to the spatial ability section?

[67] and [68] seemed to be cherry-picked misleadingly for the intro (they also happened to be the oldest studies in the entire section, except [73]) and the statement "some studies investigating the spatial abilities of men and women have found no significant differences" does not form an accurate summary of the remainder of the section; better mentioned at the bottom independently then at the top. I've removed it and merged it with the second paragraph, unless someone wants to revert and do up an intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.43.14 (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Layout in section 2 seems incorrectly biased

The layout of the first two sections in particular, specifically call out research in favor of males having a higher g factor. After that is a section detailing that the alternative is no difference. Throughout the second section though there are a very large number of studies showing higher g factor in females.

There's a clear lack of parallelism here and I would argue that it unfairly biases the reader. Especially given the fact that there's much more material and evidence for the no difference section. I would argue that separating these two sections into three would be far more even-handed, neutral, and assist in information retrieval.

In parallel structure these are the points I would include under a new section: So measuring variance of Colom's study of 4,072 high school graduates, they found that females outperform males on the inductive Primary Mental Abilities reasoning test For example, a 2008 study by researcher Timothy Z. Keith on 25 subtests of Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, along with a sample of 6,818 adults and children from 6 to 59, found females scoring higher on the latent processing speed (Gs) factor, However the sex difference in general intelligence (g-factor) was inconsistent in children with small higher female g factor during adolescence, and consistent higher female latent g factor during adulthood. Researcher Timothy Z Keith replicated the same results again in the same year when he conducted a study of 3,025 6-18 year old participants with higher female latent g factor at all ages.[38] A 2015 study published in the journal of Psychology in Schools found no sex differences on standardized testing of achievement except a small persistent female advantage in reading and large female advantage in writing among a nationally representative sample of 1,574 6-21 year old participants.[45]

It's a pretty similar amount of material and evidence as in the first section. Similarly it's very inconsistent and doesn't represent the scientific majority view, but again, the current layout seems to break neutrality for unclear reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.104.60 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

James_p26 also agrees that this page seems incorrectly biased. If anyone looks at any number of current studies on sex difference in intelligence about 9/10 of the studies conclude that men have a slight advantage on IQ and G even after basically all tests remove items in which males have an advantage to reduce sex differences. Take a look at every standardized test in every country and you will see the same result. Also the fact that the opening paragraph states that "some studies" have concluded that men have higher variability is absurd. ITS EVERY SINGLE STUDY. The name of the article is sex DIFFERENCE!! in intelligence yet the article seems to be pretty determined to convince people that there is no difference. Its idiotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James P26 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

JamesP, you are an idiot. This is from the Wikipedia page on the variability hypothesis: "In an attempt to examine the validity of the variability hypothesis, while avoiding intervening social and cultural factors, Hollingworth gathered data on birth weight and length of 1,000 male and 1,000 female neonates. This research found virtually no difference in the variability of male and female infants, and it was concluded that if variability "favoured" any sex it was the female sex.[2][3][4][5] Additionally, along with the anthropologist Robert Lowie Hollingworth published a review of literature from anatomical, physiological, and cross-cultural studies, in which no objective evidence was found to support the idea of innate female inferiority.[2][3][4][6][8]" So no, it's definitely not "EVERY SINGLE STUDY." But go ahead and keep believing that males are more intelligent than females if it makes you feel better about your own sub-60 IQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.84.44 (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Primary source after primary source

Rafe87, it's one thing to add primary source after primary source at the Demographics of sexual orientation article (which, really, shouldn't be done). It's another to add them to this article. Since this article concerns the human brain, we really should be sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources when it comes to the intelligence studies. It's easy to get WP:Secondary or WP:Tertiary sources for this topic. Google Books has plenty. This article should not include WP:Primary source material after WP:Primary source material. I'm speaking to you too, R scott83. That is why I reverted here and here.

I'll leave a note about this at WP:Med and WP:Neuroscience for more input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Flyer22 Reborn The entire sections "Researchers in favor of males in g factor" and "Researchers in favor of no sex differences or inconclusive consensus" are primary studies. Why not remove them all? It's far more sensible than deleting cherrypicked sources, which could be seen as biased editing.Rafe87 (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Those sections should only include meta-studies and reviews, not sources about individual studies. Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Rafe87, per WP:Preserve, if one is to think about gutting an article, it should be done with care. I was focused on what you and R scott83 were adding more than I was focused on existing content, but the existing content is also obviously an issue. My "primary source after primary source" commentary above is clear that none of the sections should be built like that. And like I told you before, existing poor content does not mean that it is okay to add more poor content. Removal of your poor content does not mean that I need to take a chainsaw to all of the existing content. If I see recently added unsourced material at an article, for example, as I often do when using WP:STiki, and remove it, I don't think: "Well, I might as well go ahead and remove all of the other unsourced stuff." We have Template:Citation needed tags and similar for a reason. We have WP:Preserve for a reason. If I saw that what you and R scott83 added was something to be kept, I would not have removed it and would have suggested you use better sources instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Can the rest of the primary sources be removed now? I'm fine with all the primary sources being removed, but not just the ones I inserted. Rafe87 (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Rafe87, re-read what I stated to you above. Read again what I stated to Jytdog below. A lot of this stuff can be updated with tertiary or secondary sources. So, per the WP:Preserve policy, if any of the primary sources that are removed can be easily replaced with tertiary or secondary sources, they should be replaced with those sources. Otherwise, we will either be cutting away material along with primary sources and will wind up with a WP:Stub article or the article will be mostly unsourced. If you are truly interested in improving this article, then you should follow the WP:Preserve policy and fix the primary sources issue by seeing what material can be updated with tertiary or secondary sources, and then update that material. Or wait until someone else does it. This is not about you getting to remove all of the other primary-sourced material because your primary-sourced material was removed; that is not how Wikipedia works. WP:Preserve states, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Right now, you are not trying to fix anything. You are simply requesting that we remove other material because your material was removed. When it came to me removing your and the other editor's material, what was there to fix? What tertiary or secondary sources cover it? And how is it not WP:Undue weight even if they do? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• gah this article needs almost a complete rewrite. the header is apt. There are primary sources from the 1980s in here for pete's sake. that is 30 year old stuff. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the tags, Jytdog. I know that a lot of the stuff can be updated with tertiary or secondary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I'm a little out of my depth with MEDRS/SCIRS, but I reverted more content, this time by James P26 that looks like it was supported by a primary source today. I was considering putting <!-- hidden warnings --> in every section to tell people that they must not use 'just freshly made' scientific studies, but it might be overkill. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

- Are we not supposed to add sources on current research? It automatically gets deleted? I wasn't using Wikipedia sources by the way. I actually purchased and own the rights on the full research publications. Also this entire article is citing sources, most of which are way out of date. I was simply trying to freshen the article up a little with current research studies. Most of which by the way show a male advantage on virtually every cognitive measure. JAMES_P26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by James P26 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, My name is not dave.

James P26, regarding sourcing, see what I stated above and on my talk page. You need to stick to WP:Tertiary and WP:Secondary sources that are WP:MEDRS-compliant, not primary sources. Yes, the article needs cleanup; that has been established above. That it needs cleanup does not mean that more primary and/or poor sources should be added to it. As for a male advantage, research on that matter is mixed, which is made clear by the article. For example, like this 2010 "The Handbook of Life-Span Development, Volume 2: Social and Emotional Development" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 668, states, "Sex differences in general intelligence are negligible (see, e.g., Collaer & Hines, 1995; and Hines 2004). The lack of a sex difference in intelligence may seem unsurprising, given that intelligence tests are designed to avoid sex differences. However, even before an effort was made to avoid sex differences, intelligence tests were largely gender neutral (Loehlin, 2000). It also has been suggested that males are more variable than females in intellectual ability, at least at some ages (Arden & Plomin, 2006; Deary et al., 2003), although these sex differences also are of negligible size. In addition, the evidence regarding the existence of greater male variability is mixed, with some studies finding no sex difference in variability, or more variability in girls than in boys at some ages (Arden & Plomin, 2006; Harnqvist, 1997; Reynolds et al., 2008). Despite the lack of an appreciable sex difference in general intelligence, males and females differ in performance on measures of some specific cognitive abilities, including aspects of spatial, mathematical, and verbal abilities, as well as perceptual speed." This source is the type of sources you need to be using for this article, not individual studies that conflict with one another or agree with one particular side. Also, you should sign your user name with four tildes when talking on Wikipedia talk pages. Don't remove identification, like you did here, unless you are going to sign properly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@flyer22reborn: Individual studies that conflict with one another is the entire article. If you look at the section for "researchers in favor or no difference" it appears to be exactly what I added. Which is just individual studies with a source added. If I go to science direct, research gate or other scientific research sites and find a large amount of studies verifying the same information is it possible to paraphrase the general consensus and just list all of their names in parenthesis with the dates? Thank you for your well thought out response. I still feel like editors are just meticulously picking and deleting items that they don't like or agree with. James P26 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)james_p26

Hi again, James P26. Did you take the time to truly digest what I stated above to you? Read the WP:Primary sources policy. Read the WP:MEDRS guideline. If you want to edit successfully here, then you need to conform to this site's rules. Look at the source I quoted above, which is summarizing the literature. You can find more sources like that on Google Books. The research on this matter is mixed, and numerous tertiary and secondary sources are clear on that; they also state that sex differences in general intelligence are negligible (meaning "so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant"). Unless using a few examples, adding individual studies does not help readers understand anything on this topic, given that the research is mixed and that the sex differences are so small when they are found. The current poor state of the article does not justify you contributing to that poor state. The article needs cleanup, and part of that means removing the primary sources and replacing them with tertiary or secondary sources; I already noted this above. As for your question, that would be WP:Synthesis unless it's one or more reliable tertiary or secondary sources explicitly stating a consensus on the matter. Read WP:Synthesis as well so that you know what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

talk, the entry is brimming with primary sources as it is. When I try to insert one showing a given point of view—that there are sex differences—you delete it, but then you let other primary sources showing "no differences" stand in the article. I see no reason why the Burgaleta study, a primary source, should be allowed to stay, while the Human Connectome Project should not. Both studies deal with the same subject and both are primary sources. Plus, the Burgaleta study has 100 participants and is highly unrepresentative of the population. The HCP has almost 900 and is more representative. Why should the former be allowed to stay while the latter is deleted, even though it's clear the latter is the one with better quality? Fairness and objective determine that either both stay, or both get deleted. Since you're deleting the HCP study because it is primary source, I'm deleting the Burgaleta under the same reasoning.Rafe87 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Rafe87, re-read what I stated above. It's right there, already answered for you! This is not about removing information because I don't like it. I'm not the one POV-pushing. All that material is already in the article; I didn't add it. This is about preventing more primary sourced information from being added to push a certain POV, in either direction. This is not you being concerned about primary sources or being helpful. It's you removing results you don't like. You've had a year to do what I suggested above. Instead, even after objections above (where I'm clearly not the only one objecting) to adding more primary source studies, you went right back adding a primary source to try and counter an existing primary source. Since it's clear you aren't interested in helping this article, and that no one else, at this point in time, is interested in fixing it in the way it needs to be fixed, Jytdog or someone else (maybe even me) going ahead and chopping at it might be best. I and others can always build it back up properly after the cutting. And the thing about Jytdog is that he won't just chop what he doesn't like. He's an equal-opportunity chopper. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I will have a look over the weekend... Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A half-truth I hear pretty often

"Some studies have concluded that there is larger variability in male scores compared to female scores, which results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution."

Should it not be mentioned that if we apply the deviating AVERAGE between males and females(according to WAIS etc.) the "more men at the bottom" should be at the bottom of the MALE distribution, and NOT at the total distribution? I smell bias in the phrasing of that sentence. 85.194.2.53 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Marilyn via savant

If there were more males at top of iq scale, isn’t it odd that savant is smartest person known in world? This is a “data point” that seems to make the claim of more smart males at the very top improbable.107.77.229.217 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

She's not the smartest person in the world. We don't know who is. She's scored best at an IQ test eons ago, when she was a child. That is all. I do not know how a single person might refute the fact, attested in dozens of studies, that men have more variance in IQ (as they do for most psychological traits). Rafe87 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because the literature itself conflicts on the matter, as noted in many reliable sources that present or review the literature on sex differences in intelligence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Page is biased towards men being more intelligent.

There is a section on researchers in favor of males and a section on researchers in favor of no sex difference. There is no section on researchers in favor of females, even though some researchers (such as James Flynn) have found female IQ to be above male IQ in some places. The page omitting this research - probably because of a BS political opinion - is misleading to the readers of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.84.44 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your changes without giving them much thought. But if they are improvements, they should be restored. Just keep WP:Due weight in mind. As for men being more intelligent, as noted in the #Primary source after primary source section above, there are issues with the article. And like I commneted there, this 2010 "The Handbook of Life-Span Development, Volume 2: Social and Emotional Development" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 668, states, "Sex differences in general intelligence are negligible (see, e.g., Collaer & Hines, 1995; and Hines 2004). The lack of a sex difference in intelligence may seem unsurprising, given that intelligence tests are designed to avoid sex differences. However, even before an effort was made to avoid sex differences, intelligence tests were largely gender neutral (Loehlin, 2000). It also has been suggested that males are more variable than females in intellectual ability, at least at some ages (Arden & Plomin, 2006; Deary et al., 2003), although these sex differences also are of negligible size. In addition, the evidence regarding the existence of greater male variability is mixed, with some studies finding no sex difference in variability, or more variability in girls than in boys at some ages (Arden & Plomin, 2006; Harnqvist, 1997; Reynolds et al., 2008). Despite the lack of an appreciable sex difference in general intelligence, males and females differ in performance on measures of some specific cognitive abilities, including aspects of spatial, mathematical, and verbal abilities, as well as perceptual speed."

The lead of the article currently states, in part, "With the advent of the concept of g or general intelligence, many researchers have argued for no significant sex differences in g factor or general intelligence, while others have argued for greater intelligence for males. The split view between these researchers depended on the methodology and tests they used for their claims." So, yes, the article clearly shouldn't present men as definitively smarter than women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual disability

@Flyer22 Reborn: I find no positive affirmation in our articles on the subject that there are individuals whose IQ is below 70 but who are not considered as having an intellectual disability. Wikipedia is unclear at best on the topic, but IQ classification does imply that such individuals are (or at least were once) considered inherently intellectually disabled; see also Learning disability § Contrast with other conditions, which says "usually". This appears to be a weakness of Wikipedia's coverage of this subject (including German Wikipedia, see de:Intelligenzminderung). I would appreciate if you could improve it, if you are so well-read on this subject. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, this, this and this, I explained briefly. You are equating "bottom of the IQ distribution" with "an IQ that is below 70" and intellectual disability. "Bottom of the IQ distribution" does not only mean those at the very bottom, and, as the Intellectual disability article currently makes clear, intellectual disability is not only an IQ under 70, but also "deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors that affect everyday, general living." And "Once focused almost entirely on cognition, the definition now includes both a component relating to mental functioning and one relating to individuals' functional skills in their environments. As a result of this focus on the person's abilities in practice, a person with an unusually low IQ may not be considered to have intellectually disability." In other words, having a low IQ does not automatically equate to intellectual disability. A low IQ also is not solely someone with an IQ under 70. Is 73 not a low IQ as well, for example? It is, according to reliable sources. Also, the bottom or top might be defined by specific percentages. A source might state "adults in the bottom 5% of the IQ distribution (below 75), or "the bottom 15​%" or "the top 85​%." Look at these IQ charts, which are common types of IQ charts that are used. You can see that the "normal IQ range" has been considered those in the 85 to 115 range, but also that "below average" has been considered those with a 90 between 100 IQ. One of the charts conceptualizes 70 to 89 as borderline, while 69 and below is considered intellectually deficient or very low. Another chart conceptualizes 90 to 109 as average. Lower, below the charts, the site also has its own ranges, stating that 70 to 79 is "borderline retarded" (of course, retarded is not a word we use anymore), that 80 to 89 is "below average," that 90 to 109 is "average," that 110 to 129 is "above average," that 130 to 139 is "gifted," and that 140 to 149 is "highly Intelligent." I've seen all of these ranges before, and a number of them since I was a child (I was tested for supposed giftedness a lot, in different states and in three different countries). Anyway, my point is that a low and/or below average range is not simply considered those with a 70 or below IQ, and a low and/or below average IQ does not necessarily mean intellectually disability. Furthermore, IQ tests are flawed, as a simple Google search on that matter shows. A person's IQ may very well read low on paper, but that person may actually have average intelligence, for example. You also pipelinked "top" with "intellectual giftedness," but as that article currently states, "most school placement decisions and most longitudinal studies over the course of individual lives have followed people with IQs in the top two percent of the population – that is, IQs above 130." Do you see the sources in this (Sex differences in intelligence) article talking about the top two percent only when speaking of those in the top IQ distribution? Although the Intellectual giftedness article also states that "there is no generally agreed definition of giftedness for either children or adults" and that "definitions of giftedness also vary across cultures," it might be best to exclude that link for "top." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Problematic variability references

Hi, new to wikipedia, sorry if I inadvertently don't pose this correctly. I'd like to point out a problem with both references [57,58] appearing in

"Males tend to show greater variability on many traits, for example having both highest and lowest scores on tests of cognitive abilities,[9][54][55][56] though this may differ between countries.[57][58]"

[58] is a relatively small study (n=150), a fact the authors acknowledge. It doesn't mention variance/variability once. It's true that figure 1 shows a narrower distribution in scores for men vs women. However, 1) The distributions are truncated gaussians, so likely to suffer ceiling effects 2) the main claim of the paper is that males have a statistically significant better score than females. The combination of 1) and 2) could well be responsible for a narrowing in the male score distribution (bunching near the top). FWIW, the M:F ratio in the top 5% is 3:1, which supports the hypothesis that males are more frequent in the tails. I think [58] is a weak reference, and should be dropped.

[57] is a study into a particular set of high school mathematics aptitude tests...not IQ tests. I think that should be emphasized. As such, it's unclear, at least from reading the paper, whether the reversal in variance ratios is due to cultural differences between the countries or limitations of that particular test (e.g., score ceiling effects, non-gaussianity in test score distribution). Hopefully there's a more robust study into IQ differences in variability between countries. I recommend replacing 57 with a more appropriate set of references. I've found references with mixed messages. Comparing a large US + UK cohort and finds good reproducibility in variance ratios between these two countries: They don't look at IQ but make some effort to correlate results from their standardized CogAT tests with IQ Br J Educ Psychol. 2009 Jun;79(Pt 2):389-407. doi: 10.1348/000709908X354609. Epub 2008 Sep 25. Here is another meta analysis claiming that variance ratios are not reproducible between countries, although it seems that different tests were used in different countries, and the author admits that s/he was unable to control for ceiling effects https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01420741 . Ideally there's some paper out there which compares IQ test score distribution M:F tail ratios or variances, while carefully accounting for ceiling effects. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.178.183 (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot that needs to be removed from the article and some of it needs to be replaced with non-WP:Primary sources. See the section above about primary sources. The Variability hypothesis article has also been subject to debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Overrealiance on primary sources

User: Flyer22 Reborn: As you may recall, over a year ago I tried to insert some content in this entry with recent study summaries showing a male advantage on g. I was reverted because the studies, though published in high-profile newspapers, having large samples and/or attracting some media attention, were merely primary sources. However, almost all of the remaining content in the sex differences section is based only on such sources. Last time, I was under the impression that this situation would be solved, but more than a year has passed and the situation remains the same, that is, the entire section is still based on sources that are deficient because they are primary. I ask myself again: why has my content been deleted if it is permissible for other primary sources to remain there? I'm very tempted to insert my content again or delete what's already there, especially the section on "female advantage on g", 95% of which is based on a single study, which smells like Undue Weight. Let's talk.Rafe87 (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Rafe87, sure, we can talk. In the meantime, while I didn't revert you on this, I have reverted you on all of this per the WP:Preserve policy I pointed you to in the past. That is an important policy. We need to carefully check if any of that material should be included. It is not acceptable for us to remove content that should be in this article. A slash approach without taking the time to look at the literature and see if the material is supported by non-primary sources is not the route to take. As for you being under the impression "that this situation would be solved, but more than a year has passed and the situation remains the same," you cannot force an editor to do work that you should be doing yourself. I cannot force an editor to do work that I should be doing myself. This is a volunteer project; I don't have to do a thing here. But since you have taken to slashing the article because I did not agree to include your (and more) primary source material in the article, I will now take this matter into my own hands and substantially fix up this article. I will work on a draft (off Wikipedia) over the weekend and implement the new text before or on Monday. I ask that you do not revert to the version I just reverted you on. To avoid a WP:Edit conflict or rather something similar, I also ask that you do not substantially edit this article today or the next few days. I assure you that I will remove or reduce content that should be removed or reduced. As for "why has [your] content been deleted if it is permissible for other primary sources to remain there," I thoroughly addressed you on this in the #Primary source after primary source section above. I suggest you re-read what I stated. It's not about the current content being permissible. If you doubt that I will significantly fix up this article soon, I suggest you have a look at this other WP:Preserve matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Overhauled article. Although the date states April 9th (meaning in Wikipedia time), I overhauled the article on April 8th (Monday, as promised). I cut almost all of the primary sources, replacing them with secondary sources or tertiary sources. As for the cases where I left in the primary sources, I left them in for the WP:In-text attribution pieces of the "Historical perspectives" section, and for the beginning of the "During the early twentieth century" part of that section. I also added additional sources to that section. I'll continue looking for additional sources for the Thomas Gisborne piece. I left in meta-analysis material, as meta-analyses are secondary sources and are often known to review the literature. I left in book sources that were already there, reformatting some and letting others stay as they are due to not finding the missing pages for them and due to laziness in some cases. I will look for the missing pages again at a later date. I added in some material, such as a bit to the "Historical perspectives" section. In the "Mathematics performance" section, I left in the Benbow primary source because, apparently, that Benbow was criticized by researchers is in a Cambridge University Press source right next to that source. In that same section, I left in the New York Times source for the National Science Foundation material because it is reporting on a statement from the National Science Foundation and I added an additional source (a reliable book source) for it. I cut the "Cognitive reflection test" section since it needs non-primary sourcing and I will see about restoring some of that later. I significantly cut the "Sex differences in academics" section because it wasn't really about intelligence and it used primary sources. And it's even questionable that the little material I left there in that section should be in this article. It's better suited for the Sex differences in education article. The "Self-fulfilling effects of scientific accounts of sex differences" section began with a primary source while most of it was WP:Synthesis, or rather, for some cases, the section should have had a different title. I cut the "Dyslexia" section because there are a number of learning disabilities that can be covered in this article with regard to intelligence. I don't see why we should focus on dyslexia alone. As an aside: I'm about to add a WP:Hidden note in the lead and in sections of the article, asking that editors stick to secondary sources or tertiary sources when it comes to adding material to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

variability hypothesis

Very strange:"Other research has concluded that there is larger variability in female scores compared to male scores" contradicts what is said lower down under "Variability". Also the reference given says "there is strong evidence that boys and men exhibit more variable scores on intelligence tests overall..." (Chrisler page 302) I have reversed the meaning. It would be interesting to know how this discrepancy arose.Backep1 (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Backep1

It arose due to this IP fiddling around. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Lynn

Regarding this edit: This was partly prompted by an attempt to add some of Richard Lynn's work in Mankind Quarterly as a source.

Based on some discussions at talk:Race and intelligence and spill-over at various noticeboards, I want to make sure that reliable sources, such as Hunt, are not being used to over-state the academic importance and acceptance of obsolete or fringe positions on intelligence.

So for this article, part of my concern is the comparative 'loudness' of fringe sources. Describing Rushton, Jensen, and Lynn as controversial would be a gross understatement. The raw quantity of discussion doesn't necessarily correlate with acceptance. For example, if a 2005 paper by Lynn prompts a half dozen responses ranging from skepticism to outright dismissal, this could be presented as answering a common misconception... but it's also possible that this is falsely presenting it as two sides of the same coin.

"Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments" was specifically an update of Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. Since that was specifically in response to The Bell Curve it's not surprising they would discuss Jensen. Most of the mentions of Jensen in that document seem to challenge his findings, if not outright dispute them. Is this more positive use because Jensen was prominent, or because he was relevant, or is it merely because his work was convenient to the point they needed to make? These are rhetorical questions, because I don't think Jensen's legacy is necessarily relevant to understanding the academic mainstream itself. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The relevant secondary source deemed Jensen's work here relevant, probably because the overall mass of research in this area is limited. However, I, in general, have a difficult time understanding the purpose of the last paragraph here in regards to the discussion of the edits. Jensen is cited in a reliable secondary source like Hunt's book is cited here as well for other research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.204.252 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

My recent change to the lead sentence of the no or inconclusive sex differences section

In regards to recent debate in the editing history I wanted to clear some misconceptions I may have caused. In making my edit I did not want to give off the impression that I meant the section focused on “no differences in intelligence” but rather no difference in general intelligence. I also wanted to clarify my personal confusion on the original sentence. I am a bit confused as to the statement that most studies find either a tiny male advantage or no differences because that’s almost a position of inconclusiveness entirely for what appears to be no meaningful differences overall as presented by the two sources listed just after. I could be understanding wrong, but perhaps it would be best to put this in the differences section above it saying something like “most studies that find differences in general intelligence report a minor advantage for males” and then also list the caveats general relative mentioned. I’m not super great at Wikipedia technical stuff but I want to help if I can so thanks for discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:7601:7D57:DD91:836C:F5F3:FF35 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Disputed content

Dark Flow is invited to explain the content they wish to add here and persuade others before re-adding, as required by WP:ONUS. My objection to this content is that it uncritically cites WP:PROFRINGE author Richard Lynn, who is known for making wild claims based on extremely dubious methodology. Crossroads has objected that this content is inappropriate because we should be citing academic review articles per WP:SOURCETYPES. Both of these objections should be addressed here, and consensus reached, before the content is re-added. Generalrelative (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

If Professor Lynn is not credible why is he in this article next to reference 14 to 15 ?

Why is Professor Lynn not credible ?

You are citing articles that are based on the same meta analysis that found out that men on average have 5 IQ points more globally .

Therefore I assume you play professor here and just accept studies that have results that you prefer ?

I do not claim to know the truth, but I find that different opinions could be respected on wikipedia .

I could elaborate, why I think you are maybe misinterpreting those references 14 and 15, and do some more research, but honestly I would prefer to be able to have the time for a text that even Feminists could may be tolerate , since the tone is obvious biased here ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Flow (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

1) Richard Lynn is not a professor. He had his emeritus status stripped from him. He is a former professor.

2) Richard Lynn is not credible for all the reasons stated in the article Richard Lynn –– and more importantly, all the reliable sources upon which that article is based.

3) I am not aware of any credible source which claims that men on average have 5 IQ points more globally.

4) Assuming good faith is a requirement here. If you persist in assuming bad faith (e.g. you play professor here and just accept studies that have results that you prefer) you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This policy is followed especially closely in topics for which discretionary sanctions exist, such as this one.

5) Please refer to our core policy of neutrality for how we handle different opinions, in particular the section on false balance.

6) I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your final point (there appears to be an issue with English-language competency here), nor what Feminists have to do with it.

Generalrelative (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Generalrelative I should have done better research that was my mistake . I thought that this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16248939/ explains a not 5% difference but 4.5% or so, because the mean is affacted by a larger deviation in cognitive abilities of men . I am done with this, it is not important for me . I am sorry, for guessing that there are facts that count in that research . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Flow (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sex difference and IQ

As the article on Intelligence Quotient says 'Currently, most IQ tests, including popular batteries such as the WAIS and the WISC-R, are constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males.' This makes most references in the article to IQ as opposed to just intelligence or g factor or some other such thing in relation to sex rather meaningless despite some prestigious journals referring to them together. NadVolum (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a very interesting point. I followed one of the references given for that claim, and indeed, the claim is found in http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFiles/IQ_Neisser2.pdf, PDF page 15, right at the start of the "Sex Differences" section.

However, "no overall score differences" likely, in my understanding, means no differences in mean IQ scores. You could still find differences in, e.g., variance. Does anyone have more references on this which elaborate a bit more on this issue?? 2A01:C22:85E1:6500:85C7:F294:4D7A:FEBC (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Chess

I believe the top 20 highest rated chess players are all men. Analysis of chess and its gender issues may be a good topic to mention in this article. I believe sourcing exists, for example, this Journal of Biological Science article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae it looks like a primary source so I’m not entirely sure I can trust it.CycoMa (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa. It might be a review actually. I don't see any novel data, I just see analyses of existing studies. For example, another aspect of the data reported by Howard (2005a, 2006) and Between 1990 and 2005, the years for which reliable data are available. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

MEDLINE indexed journal too. If I'm right about it not having novel data, this is WP:MEDRS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I looked it up on pubmed and it’s not labeled as a review?CycoMa (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

[1]. Doesn't appear to be labeled with anything. Not labeled with study or trial either. I've seen PubMed articles without labels before. In that situation I would assume we need to make our own determination. In my opinion, primary means you're doing the study, collecting your own data. Secondary means you're looking at multiple other people's studies and data and synthesizing conclusions from them. This appears to be secondary, although happy to hear other opinions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a newer resource on chess about sex differences in intelligence? I haven't looked yet, but I'm very hesitant to base the information on a 2007 resource. GBFEE (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

it looks like most sources here are older than 2007WesPhil (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

For reporting on historical ways and studies that received attention in secondary or tertiary resources. Not for something like the top 20 highest-rated chess players. The top 20 highest-rated chess players is something that may have changed since 2007. And when it's analyzed in terms of comparing human male and human female intelligence, it's all the more important that it not be so old or a primary resource. Math performance has changed, and we say this with newer resources and not just by reporting on a 2008 study. The sex differences in brain anatomy will remain, and so a 2007 resource for those differences that are well-known would be fine. But even in the brain and intelligence section, no resource is older than 2010. When it's new or doubtful material on brain sex differences, no one should be using a 2007 resource. There are reasons newer resources that are also secondary or tertiary are required for things people say at neuroscience of sex differences. Regardless, there's plenty of resources older newer than 2007 in the sex differences in intelligence article, and newer resources should be one of our aims for this topic except for when it doesn't matter if they're newer or not. GBFEE (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

See, I would normally agree, but the study in question under this thread seems to be a review. Despite the lack of labeling. Obviously, the top 20 may have changed, but this study is analyzing the reasons why there aren't as many high-performing women as men in chess. I think from a historical standpoint, that is a relevant thing to include. The reason why there were fewer women than men among top chess players in that time period is not going to change with time. It provides evidence for why, historically, women have not been among the top performers, not necessarily a prescriptive claim that men are smarter than women. In fact, it shows that women are not less intelligent because of their lack of high performers in chess. And last I checked, the top chess players are mostly men still. All of it seems really similar to books like Hunt's listed here that include studies that are quite older than 2007, and most of the prominent studies conducted by Lynn, for example, are before 2007. WesPhil (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No, "WesPhil" (who edits occasionally), studies like Lynn received attention in secondary resources and so on. Resources much newer than 2007 still discuss studies like Lynn. There's nothing to indicate that the above is due in Wikipedia terms. We also shouldn't use this resource to analyze what you said. We should use secondary resources (or other resources that are just as acceptable) to review the literature and beyond 2007 to analyze those things. Maybe a bit of it would be okay in the historical section, but I wouldn't call 2007 "historical." Maybe other opinions here will differ from mine on this, but I've had my say on it. GBFEE (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

being included in a review that is recent does not make the data in the review recent. It’s still the same data. 2007 is not too old of a date for an issue like chess masters who change relatively little. The fact is the top players are still men, so how would these conclusions change in that time? And drop the snark. On another note, since you seem so bold on this, do you have a more recent study about this issue or are you just going to sweep this issue under the rug? I think the disparity in chess is very important to include. WesPhil (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Snark? Oh my. I wouldn't want there to be an implication I've been snarking. You have my assurance that I will aim to refrain from snarking with the same effort you aim to never forget to sign your posts,[2][3] because not signing your posts is very, very obviously a mistake and is only something a new editor or other editor who's edited very, very little would do.

About the stuff you said, how do you think we assess what studies to include? The policy is thataway. It matters if a study has received attention in a secondary resource. You know I wasn't saying data being analyzed in a recent review means that the data is recent. Sure, we'll sweep studies that haven't been shown to be due for inclusion under the rug. GBFEE (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I’ve never tried to say that I’m an experienced editor, but I’m not an inexperienced person in regards to science and the relevancy of science. I know you weren’t saying that the data literally becomes new, but I fail to see the practical significance of old data being covered in newer sources. It doesn’t change the data. And there isn’t a “we” really since you’ve been the only obstacle to including a chess section. That being said, I do agree with you that we shouldn’t base the section on a study like this alone, but I am still adamant on my view that a section on chess should be at least discussed when it’s so obvious that men dominate in that field. If men and women are truly equal in cognitive abilities, we wouldn’t see this trend, so the article would benefit from discussing real world scenarios where intelligence can play out. I hope you can at least agree with me there. WesPhil (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your post on first occurrence this time. I never said, and I definitely didn't indicate, you were trying to say you're an experienced editor. Trying to convey inexperience, though? I'll leave others to read between the lines on that (what my "snark" means). You say I've been the only obstacle to including a chess section. Nope. Read above again. Another editor was hesitant about including the material based on that resource, and then I expressed hesitancy about including the material based on that resource. You have appropriate resources that show the material is due for inclusion, and that we should even include an entire chess section? Then provide those resources and make a strong case for inclusion. You haven't. I've "been an obstacle" because of the Wikipedia process, its policies and guidelines. You've admitted that you "fail to see the practical significance of old data being covered in newer sources", which reveals you either do not understand the policy on due weight and things said at the medical guidance page or you don't care about them. How is it that you don't see the practical significance of the scientific community analyzing and commenting on the results of a study? Since you apparently don't see it, why should we continue discussing this? I've had my say, and I'm not saying more about this unless you or someone else makes a strong argument and a consensus emerges for your viewpoint. GBFEE (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

And if you're going to be one of those people who say that the medical guidance page isn't for topics like this, I'm going to say you're wrong. Look around. A lot of debating, at pages like race and intelligence and other pages on intelligence, involves strong arguments that the medical guidance page applies to much of the material. If it's just social stuff, yeah, that's a different beast. But Wikipedia still prefers secondary resources and that studies show some significance by having been analyzed in secondary resources before including them. If the study hasn't been given any attention at all in secondary resources after some time, the Wikipedia process is to ask why Wikipedia should give it any attention. GBFEE (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not gonna act like I am more qualified to debate when which Wikipedia guidelines apply or not. I can see your point obviously, so I’m gonna defer authority on that from here to you. There are many secondary sources that still say top twenty chess players and they’re still all men. But I’m not here to necessarily suggest specific articles, and I will end this with saying I still support a section addressing cognitive abilities applied to competitions like chess. I should’ve approached this way in the first place, but I want to express my hope that this issue is not abandoned simply because one source offered by a user does not meet the consensus criteria for inclusion. WesPhil (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

September 22/23, 2021 edits‎

I did a rvt on edits by Stjump,[4] although I put back in one part.[5] I named some reasons for the rvt in my editing description. I can explain more if anyone wants me to. For example, besides primary resources or reports on primary research, and some use of resources that are so old, some of the material synthesized summaries of the research. In the reading and verbal skills section, an external link to cohend (focusing on effect size) was added.[6] Wikipedia articles normally shouldn't include external links in the body. Maybe other users will name issues they have with the edits or what they think we should keep.

I'm also just going to say that the way Stjump contributes is the way that EvgFakka edits.[7] I'll say "exactly the way that EvgFakka contributes" (if I'm going to be entirely honest about what I think), right down to the focus on effect size. EvgFakka threatened to create thousands of accounts to keep editing this way after warnings to stop.[8] Stjump, if you're EvgFakka, I think it would show goodwill to just say so and then edit as EvgFakka only. If you're not EvgFakka, then you can just ignore the part about EvgFakka. But I have to say it looks really, really doubtful that another user would arrive at this non-busy article and contribute to it in a way indistinguishable to EvgFakka and within such a short time frame. It's within a short time frame because it's not even months since EvgFakka last edited. I find that even the editing descriptions are alike. I also noticed that if I stop editing for a few days or longer, then EvgFakka returns (sometimes to edit as an IP address), and that Stjump is on this same trajectory. GBFEE (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey GBFEE, is this how I comment/start a conversation with you? Wanted to discuss the changes you made to some of my edits on the differences in intelligence between the sexes wiki page. I have no idea who EvgFakka is, but I'm not them. This is my first time editing a Wiki page, and "stjump" is the only username I've had. I ended up conducting substantial research on gender and STEM, as well as spatial awareness, over the summer and felt compelled to build out the Wikipedia page on the subject, as it was lacking. That's what led me to this particular wiki page, where I noticed several other issues in the other sections. I've been working to build them out in chunks. Is there an "acceptable" way of including an external link? I added the rpsychologist.com page because it's the best visualization of cohen's d I've found and makes the concept substantially easier for laypeople to understand, but I was unaware that was considered bad form. Stjump (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Stjump. Okay, since you say you're not EvgFakka (and it's healthier not to stay suck on that or speculate that you're someone copying EvgFakka or pulling my chain), do you have any issue with reading over EvgFakka's talk page and my discussion with EvgFakka at Talk:Sex differences in human physiology[9]? I just want to make sure we're on the same page about issues people have had with the way EvgFakka contributes. For example, users have told EvgFakka to avoid using primary resources. Does this edit[10] you made mean you understand we should avoid them? Thank you for the edit. Using resources that are so old is another issue. Okay, I guess the so-old resources aren't a big issue if they're used in the history section. But you also have to be careful not to synthesize data.

What issues do you have with the page? We can work through individual sections here and discuss what we think should be added or cut. For the big changes you made and I did a rvt on,[11] I don't think a comparison of how beliefs are today, or that information about the progress women have made today, should be in the history section. I think that section should just be about the old-time views. I don't think we should include information about one study unless a review or meta-analysis highlighted it for an important reason and it truly improves the article. There's so many tests out there and they come and go. What makes any one significant or special enough to mention? I don't think we should say things like "see 'Brain and intelligence' section below." When you say "This is supported by the fact that, nowadays, women's participation in general and advanced math classes has matched men's, and there is no longer a gap in arithmetical reasoning (see section on 'Mathematics performance' below)", is that not you adding in your own personal thoughts? We could say something like that in a more encyclopedic way. What issue do you have with the "In favor of males or females in g factor" title? Maybe we can discuss and agree on a different title. When you say "the evidence for this is mixed, but the hypothesis remains plausible", is that in the 2008 resource anywhere? Also, why should we use this 2008 resource that focuses on a specific region? Why should we include the quote by Jakob Pietschnig? Why not only summarize what the meta-analysis said? Why remove "Across countries, males have performed better on mathematics tests than females"? I find that this gives context for the rest of the section. We do also say that "but the male-female difference in math scores is related to gender inequality in social roles" and talk more about the gender issues. Why include a 1995 resource[12]? Was the 1995 resource included to talk about cohen's d? The Wikipedia process says that if we're to compare how things have changed over the years, we should use a resource that does, and not put together different resources from different years and offer our own analysis. GBFEE (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis and want to emphasize that primary sources should not be used. Only review articles, please. And do not cherry pick what to say from them. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey GBFEE, again I'm not EvgFakka. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to prove that. However, I expect you'll come to realize I'm someone else as we continue to converse. I would strongly prefer to keep this short and avoid an editing war. While I don't have the time nor the desire to read through your arguments with someone else in full, I did take a quick glance. It sounds like the use of primary sources was your main issue. Is that correct? I agree we should avoid making large conclusions from primary sources. Looking at the page now, it seems any primary sources I added have already been removed, so we should be fine now. Many of my additions were meta-analyses/secondary sources anyways. Also, what does "rvt" stand for, specifically? Revert?

In regards to the historical perspectives section: It needs substantially more nuance, and it needs to rebuke theories that have been debunked. If you're going to include historical perspectives, they actually need to be put in perspective with modern information. Otherwise, we end up peddling false pedagogical ideologies, which does not contribute to human knowledge. You state on the talk page that we should use secondary/meta-analytic sources, but this section is based primarily off of the opinions of individuals as opposed to referencing real data. Even though you've cited books, you are not citing actual data; you're citing individual's opinions. We should move to look at what the data actually said and how it compares to current data. (In particular, the data on brain size differences resulting in higher male intelligence is now widely regarded as pseudoscience. It's damaging to propagate outdated information without acknowledging that it's outdated/has been proven false.)

I found a secondary source (a 2016 review article by Janet Hyde) that has a good section on the history of psychological research on gender differences. (See: Sex and cognition: gender and cognitive functions). I'd like to replace most of the individual opinions in the history section with this information. We should also focus only on data on cognitive differences that are relevant to a discussion on intelligence (e.g., mathematical, verbal, and spatial abilities). This section strays away from differences in intelligence into differences in temperament/behavior (e.g., women being "less morally developed," references to social roles like family support, stereotypes of women being "excitable, emotional, sensitive" and "not suited for political participation.") These insights are irrelevant to the topic of the Wiki page and should be removed. Lastly, the section is anachronistic. You have a sentence stating that current consensus is that gender plays no role in intelligence, then switch back to referencing a 1916 study. The section should follow a chronological order, which is why I moved this sentence, "During the early twentieth century, the scientific consensus shifted to the view that gender plays no role in intelligence," to the end. I'll do a rewrite and post it here. We can discuss it and agree on a final before publishing to avoid an editing war. Ok?

In regards to your specific questions: there is no longer a gap in arithmetical reasoning--that is not my opinion, it's a fact based on the data in the mathematical section. However, I am fine keeping that sentence out of the historical section (and using a more encyclopedic writing style) if we make the rewrites suggested above.

Regarding the "In favor of males or females in g factor" title, it didn't seem necessary to have two sections, given that both the 'in favor of differences' and 'in favor of no differences' sections cite mixed data. That section ought to be streamlined/trimmed down a bit in general.

Regarding the question on the sentence, "the evidence for this is mixed, but the hypothesis remains plausible:" I took that directly from the source. Here is the direct quote from the paper itself (happy to provide more context if you need as well): "Because of this, he proposes, there is no sex difference in general intelligence in childhood, but a sex difference favoring males emerges after age 16. The evidence for this hypothesis is mixed (e.g., Dolan et al., 2006; Ilai & Willerman, 1989; Johnson & Bouchard, 2007a; Lim, 1994; Mackintosh & Bennett, 2005; Mau & Lynn, 2001; Reynolds et al., 2008; van der Sluis, Derom, et al., 2008; van der Sluis, Posthuma, et al., 2006), but the hypothesis is plausible." Even if this study focuses on an individual region, it provides more context outside of one researcher's opinion. If this was an innate, biological difference between men/women (which of course is what we're trying to elucidate in the Wiki page), then you would expect the phenomenon to be consistent across cultures. I chose this source because it was the best I could find on such a specific subject. Do you still take issue with this source?

You also asked why I changed, "across countries males have performed better on mathematics tests than females." That one's simple: it implies that men outperform women in all countries, which is untrue and contradictory with the PISA data provided later. Men outperform women in SOME countries. Are you fine with me re-wording it or incorporating in the "male-female difference in math scores is related to gender inequality in social roles.[33] In a 2008 study..." part of that sentence after the PISA data, which better quantifies the commonality of gender gaps across countries anyways? I also think the paragraphs could be re-ordered. We should put the 2008 meta-analysis first, because it gets straight to the point and is by far the most robust piece of data in that section (over 7 million people!) Then, it would be good to include that first paragraph either before the SAT section or preferably incorporated into the SAT/PISA paragraph, as it provides useful historical context. Can I go ahead and re-order the paragraphs or are you going to change it back again if I do? These changes don't substantially alter the conclusions of the section.

Regarding your question on summarizing Jakob Pietschnig's quote--you already went ahead and did that, correct? (Without deleting the information?) I'm fine with it being incorporated instead of quoted. It makes no difference to me.

As per your last question, "Why include a 1995 resource[10]? Was the 1995 resource included to talk about cohen's d?" I'm not sure that resource was one of mine. What was it used in reference to? Good to know on the Wiki process of comparing how things change over time. I did cite two different sources for the change in SAT scores. I'm assuming that's fine. It's a single, raw data point so there isn't room for ambiguity there. No one has written a review on it.

Ok, my turn to ask you questions. What was your issue with the additions to the verbal section? Namely, why did you remove: "Women also generally show a small advantage in verbal abilities including verbal fluency, perceptual speed, and accuracy.[54] However, the gender difference varies across which verbal skill is tested. For example, in a 2016 meta-analysis, no gender differences were found for vocabulary (d = - 0.02), reading comprehension (d = -0.03), or essay writing (d = -0.09), but a moderate female advantage was found for verbal fluency (d = -0.33). A separate meta-analysis looking at data from several big, well-sampled U.S.-based studies found that cohen's d for reading comprehension ranged from -0.18 to 0.002 while effect sizes for vocabulary ranged from -0.06 to 0.25, indicating no substantial female advantage for these skills.[55]"

This data is taken from a recent (2016) secondary/meta-analytic source. Providing the cohen's d's provides nice context into the size of the difference as well, which I consider very important. The female verbal/reading advantage is thoroughly discussed/researched in the literature, and naturally should be included in this article.

Now that I'm aware of the historical records Wiki has for page changes, I see you left a comment on the spatial awareness change I made regarding CAH. I replaced an old meta-analysis on the topic with a newer one. I have read both studies in full--the new meta-analysis includes all studies from the old one and adds in new data. The conclusion that there is, "no evidence of enhanced spatial ability among these individuals" was not my opinion. It was the title of the paper and conclusion provided in the abstract. However, I am happy to add an additional sentence after that sentence stating the the meta-analysis concluded there's no evidence because of mixed results: some studies showed increased spatial ability, some no change, and some decreased ability among women with CAH. Overall, the combined effect size was negligible. Does that work for you?

I also want to add some more case studies here. Specifically, there are interesting cases where the gap is either attenuated or completely eliminated with training or by artifacts of the test itself. I will reference these individual studies through their mentions in secondary sources, as you have requested. I'm going to go ahead and make these additions when I have time, as I do not anticipate you having an issue with them.

This next one is a very small request. I noticed you changed back some wording (something similar to "women and men are equally good at math" being reverted to "women are as good as men at math"). I read an interesting study that noted that phrasing a comparison as, "x is as good as y at z" actually implies that y is better. In other words, despite objective equivalency, people read it in a biased way. To avoid unintended bias, I would suggest we use other wording when stating men and women are equal at something (in either direction). Are you fine with minor re-wordings where appropriate? Stjump (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Stjump's final point here. One instance was quoted text which cannot be altered, but I copy edited the image caption to conform with best practice. Generalrelative (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, Stjump. It doesn't matter who I think you are if I'm going to choose to talk to and work with you. Any suspicions I have about you no longer lead to EvgFakka, and it's not something I can pursue. I think we both know this. Even though you made an extremely long post, which is something EvgFakka would have done, you have used better grammar than EvgFakka and your "voice" sounds different. What I'm not going to do is a back and forth with you that consists of very long posts like I did with EvgFakka. Your second post is way too long. So per Wikipedia guidance, please be more concise. Please pick one point you want to focus on and we can work on that point, and so forth, and so forth. Generalrelative has taken on one of the points you made already. That edit[13] is fine. I never had an issue with the image caption. The change got caught up with the other changes in the rvt. GBFEE (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

And for a starting point, let's discuss the history section. You said, "In regards to the historical perspectives section: It needs substantially more nuance, and it needs to rebuke theories that have been debunked. If you're going to include historical perspectives, they actually need to be put in perspective with modern information. Otherwise, we end up peddling false pedagogical ideologies, which does not contribute to human knowledge." I disagree. Readers are much smarter than that. The section is named appropriately so that readers know it's about historical perspectives. When I read historical sections on Wikipedia, I never see modern-day rebuttals to them. This is because the modern-day views or happenings are spread elsewhere throughout the article. To have modern-day rebuttals in a historical perspectives section is like someone from the future going back in time to rebut someone, using their world-view to challenge someone who simply isn't going to understand it. It also means we're repeating information found elsewhere in the article. What we can do is move the history section down so that it's last, if everyone agrees to that. What do you say? You can continue discussing your argument about history, agree to my suggestion, move on to the next point, or do all three. GBFEE (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

We can start with the history section. Many of the readers on this article will be children or teenagers who are impressionable. Moving it to the end will help, and I'm fine not including current updates if we do that. However, providing the opinions of a handful of individuals from history is hardly a complete historical account. I strongly believe we should remove all opinions that are not relevant to the discussion of differences in intelligence. Propagating stereotypes about women being "emotional" has nothing to do with the topic of the page. If this section is to be included, it should be written off of an actual history provided by a secondary source. Generalrelative, thank you for your comment. Perhaps you would like to weigh in on this one as well? Stjump (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stjump: This seems like a very sane analysis and I'm happy to see you've proceeded with your intended edits. Let me know if there's any way I can be helpful to you. Generalrelative (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You said, "Even though you've cited books, you are not citing actual data; you're citing individual's opinions. We should move to look at what the data actually said and how it compares to current data." You may have meant "you" as a "general you," but I actually didn't add or cite any opinions in the history section, and what I have added to the page, like women having an advantage on object location, isn't opinion.[14] If you check the history of the page, you'll see the historical perspectives section has been there for a long time. I think it's okay and unproblematic for the section to include historical opinions. The section is labeled "historical perspectives", not "historical facts." It's meant to be about people's thinking at the time, and is therefore typical of how history sections usually are if about a topic that inspires debate. However, I agree with your assessment that "We should also focus only on data on cognitive differences that are relevant to a discussion on intelligence (e.g., mathematical, verbal, and spatial abilities). This section strays away from differences in intelligence into differences in temperament/behavior (e.g., women being 'less morally developed,' references to social roles like family support, stereotypes of women being 'excitable, emotional, sensitive' and 'not suited for political participation.') These insights are irrelevant to the topic of the Wiki page and should be removed." It will also be easy to find secondary and tertiary resources that discuss how people felt about women's intelligence compared to men's at the time. A few tertiary or secondary resources are already in the section. You said that "there is no longer a gap in arithmetical reasoning" is not your opinion, "it's a fact based on the data in the mathematical section." I know that, but the way you had it there in the history section sounded like a person passionately speaking on the topic rather than an encyclopedia dispassionately speaking on it. GBFEE (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Now that we have the history stuff mostly resolved, I want to skip to a few other things you said. Replying to your points don't need to be in chronological order, so I'm not going in order with this. We should still tackle perceived issues one at a time, but I want to respond to a few things now. You have an issue with "Across countries, males have performed better on mathematics tests than females." But the resource says "across countries."[15] Saying "across countries" isn't saying "all countries", regardless of how a reader interprets it. I also still think it's the better introduction for the section, considering that the section talks a lot about the male advantage in math, however slight or big due to reasons that are societal and cultural. I tried adding "traditionally", but I removed it[16] because the resource doesn't say "traditionally." Perhaps we can locate a resource that does say that. How do you feel about how I repositioned the information?[17][18] It jumps right to explaining, which I think gives great context for what follows in the section.

You said something about CAH. So you're saying you're this[19] IP editor? All right, but for that edit, I didn't say you said anything the resources don't. I said, "It's more complete to explain how the results have been mixed instead of only saying it and not talking about the previous reports that girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia score significantly higher on spatial ability tests. This, however, can be explained in due time."[20] As for your suggestion for this, I'm okay with it. But where you talk about including individual studies, I don't think it's enough that secondary or tertiary resources mention a study. Otherwise, we could include a lot of individual studies based on that. I said, "I don't think we should include information about one study unless a review or meta-analysis highlighted it for an important reason and it truly improves the article. There's so many tests out there and they come and go. What makes any one significant or special enough to mention?"

The 1995 resource. Have a look at the rvt I did on your edits.[21]. The 1995 resource wasn't there in the "reading and verbal skills" section before you added it. GBFEE (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, GBFEE, I see--I recognize that you did not write the historical data section. I've deleted the irrelevant references to women's temperament that don't have to do with intelligence differences and am now ready to move on to other issues.

Regarding the "Across countries males have performed better on mathematics" sentence: another issue is that this contradicts with the following paragraphs. The resource itself says 'in almost every country,' boys outperform girls in math by high school. That's not true based on the PISA data, where almost 60% of countries have either no difference or female advantage. The difference in high school scores has actually changed dramatically since that book was published (Decreased by half on the PISA from 2015-2018). Are you fine with a small rewording of that first sentence? We can keep the order if you really want--I am fine with the other changes you made.

Regarding the CAH question. Yes, I was that IP editor. I guess I wasn't logged in or something on the computer I used that day. However, I was not any of the earlier anon editors. I've made the change we just agreed on by adding, "Some studies showed females with CAH demonstrated superior performance, some saw no performance difference, and some reduced performance, compared to controls." Is that ok with you? As for including individual studies, I agree with your statement, "I don't think we should include information about one study unless a review or meta-analysis highlighted it for an important reason and it truly improves the article." I would be following the same protocol. I've read enough spatial awareness studies to know there are studies that fall under this category. I don't see an issue including that data, so long as we follow Wikipedia's recommendation of using "extreme caution" when discussing the results of one study, and don't interpret the results ourselves. Why don't I write something up on it when I get a chance, and you can give your opinion on it then? It's going to be a busy few weeks for me, but I'll get to it soon.

Regarding the old resource, I see the confusion now. I pulled that from a 2016 review article, but it was referencing an older meta-analysis. Perhaps that study belongs in the historic perspectives section. I'll try and track down a more recent one, because the verbal section remains lacking. Stjump (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I should say something else here about the historical viewpoint. The view that women weren't capable of rational thought as a result of their emotions[22] is about intelligence. Men believed women were less smart because of emotionality. So maybe we should include one sentence or paragraph about it. Also, I don't know what's in the resource for "During the early 20th century, the scientific consensus shifted to the view that gender plays no role in intelligence.", but it looks like we should use a much more recent resource than the one used to say that.

Regarding the "Across countries, males have performed better on mathematics" sentence, what is your alteration suggestion for it? I think we should inform people of how things used to be on a large scale, not just in the United States. The second paragraph in the section starts out talking about how boys outperformed girls in the United States. But what about the rest of the world? I should check to see if the rest of the paragraph is also about the United States. I think we should look for resources that actually say something like "Across countries, males used to perform better on mathematics than females, but that is largely no longer the case." Cross-cultural analysis is important for this piece on the page. Then we should talk about the gender inequality reason, the parents thing, and then explain how things have shifted. We could still say "traditionally" if we locate a resource that says it.

You haven't added "Some studies showed females with CAH demonstrated superior performance, some saw no performance difference, and some reduced performance, compared to controls." yet, but it's okay with me if you add it as long as a resource says or supports it. You said you agree on the criteria for adding individual studies. That's good. Don't forget tertiary resources can also be used to assess the importance or due-ness of the study. You asked about writing up something so we can discuss it. Okay. GBFEE (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)