Math Journals Bullied into depublishing math models on gender differences.

[MacDuffle]

Why would I provide a counter to, "your mean"?

Specifics make the argument. Disagree all you want, just back it up. Saying I shouldn't state the obvious regarding barriers to education across gender lines is weird mate

 

[esdoornblad]

Geez I haven't seen you post in years. Have you been lurking?

I've been posting occasionally this year. Depends on how badly I want to waste my time.

 

[esdoornblad]

It's a flimsy study in a shitty thread made specifically to push a shitty point of view that women are naturally dumb which is one step removed from attributing race to learning capability in the 30s

I believe the difference in variance between male and female IQ is well-studied, with quantitative results repeatable across studies as reported by meta-analyses. Among well-known cognitive scientists, Steven Pinker is an example of somebody who views the differing variances as non-controversial:

https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/pinker.slides.html

The a priori expectation is that neither the mean nor the standard deviation of IQs should be the same between arbitrary subpopulations. Among theoretical physicists (I am one), the ratio of men to women in the "scary" category (I mean, the top 5% of physicists with IQs in the stratosphere) is very much greater than one.

 

[esdoornblad]

Also do you hear yourself?

I don't know how you acquired this dumbfuck world view but you should be looking for information the other way around.

When you're trying to reassure people a theoretical study of gender disparity and learning capacity is spot-on because it's theoretical, just know you're a bad person

The paper is not a "theoretical study of gender disparity and learning capacity", it's a model for how sexual selection can give rise to differences in variances (of particular but non-specific attributes) between males and females. It a model to describe observational data.

 

[MacDuffle]

The paper is not a "theoretical study of gender disparity and learning capacity", it's a model for how sexual selection can give rise to differences in variances (of particular but non-specific attributes) between males and females. It a model to describe observational data.

That doesn't scan bud. IQ is not something that stays fixed at birth. It's been well documented that education affects overall intelligence, and the rise in global IQ historically supports this correlation between education and higher measurable intelligence

Or to put it in simpler terms, your brain needs stimulus to develop. The traditional model of women-at-home with no job other than child-raising did not do favors for brain development or higher rates of education across gender lines, while men had access to education at the same drastic gap you see in the "study"

 

[MacDuffle]

A genius at the top of their field did not have the same IQ as a toddler. At some point you have to recognize the science and not wild statistical correlation sans-hard biology, something that study lacks in spades.

You want to cite phrenology or skull sizes yet


Dr Mengele

 

[NoDak]

Both yes and no. Yes, absolutely, science is predicated upon experimentation and controlled variables in order to further understand and measure the world around us. However, also consider applied sciences, such as engineering, psychology, and medicine. Those are still very much scientifically based, but we can't do control groups for experimentation due to feasibility. It requires us to take corollary data based on individual data points, aggregating it over time to determine probabilities, best practices, and governing rules.

You have to be careful about the exclusivity in the mindset. While I certainly understand and appreciate the sentiment you're conveying, I would also warn you that it's a dangerous game. If you separate that the hard sciences are sciences, while the economics and politics are definitely not sciences, you may convince people that the scientific method should have no place in how they conduct themselves. You may suggest that what they are doing is inherently an emotive response to external stimuli, and you'll end up with those who make only emotional appeals winning the day, a frightening thought. As easy as it is to criticize our current system, and it definitely has its problems, but the honest truth is that the system is working pretty well. Guys like Richard Spencer are not actually in charge, implementing overtly racist policies that might see all minorities enslaved or eradicated. Groups like Antifa are not actually in charge, routing out anyone that they deem to be a fascist and putting these "undesirables" into reeducation camps. When you consider all the possible outcomes between utopia and the worst possible suffering for everyone everywhere at all times, we are actually doing pretty well. If we take a sense of objectivity away from the political sphere, what I suspect is that you'll see a shift towards that hell because you'll lose your ability to measure both good and bad, and that would be a bad thing.

 

[esdoornblad]

That doesn't scan bud. IQ is not something that stays fixed at birth. It's been well documented that education affects overall intelligence, and the rise in global IQ historically supports this correlation between education and higher measurable intelligence

Or to put it in simpler terms, your brain needs stimulus to develop. The traditional model of women-at-home with no job other than child-raising did not do favors for brain development or higher rates of education across gender lines, while men had access to education at the same drastic gap you see in the "study"

First paragraph is orthogonal to the notion of inter-group differences. Height is not fixed at birth, and the mean has also risen. Yet there are inter-group height differences. Second paragraph is speculation of the "dime-a-dozen" variety.

 

[Kindacrazy]

Specifics make the argument. Disagree all you want, just back it up. Saying I shouldn't state the obvious regarding barriers to education across gender lines is weird mate

You aren't stating anything. You don't know anything about the research and your argument reduces to, "don't say their are differences because it is mean". From what I can there is little controversy over these issues to anyone except with people who don't want to accept the science because it implies unpleasant things. I know very little of what the science actually says on this topic as I haven't done much research. But I find the god in the gaps arguments being used to attack researchers on this subject ironic and disgusting.

 

[Kindacrazy]

A genius at the top of their field did not have the same IQ as a toddler. At some point you have to recognize the science and not wild statistical correlation sans-hard biology, something that study lacks in spades.

You want to cite phrenology or skull sizes yet


Dr Mengele

This is a statement made in ignorance. A genius is very likely to have had the same IQ as a toddler since IQ is age adjusted.

 

[Lord Coke]

suffer not a witch to live i enough to deal with this

 

[Kindacrazy]

Didn't the organizers of that event have a huge war on their hands trying to keep the social justice crazies at bay?

 

[The ScorpioN]

 

[MacDuffle]

First paragraph is orthogonal to the notion of inter-group differences. Height is not fixed at birth, and the mean has also risen. Yet there are inter-group height differences. Second paragraph is speculation of the "dime-a-dozen" variety.

Using the word "orthogonal" in a sentence does not prove you understand what we're talking about here

Access to education raises IQ. Across gender lines, that resource has not been made available globally to females anywhere close to male access throughout history. That is where your genius count comes from. Access to stimulus.

 

[MacDuffle]

You aren't stating anything. You don't know anything about the research and your argument reduces to, "don't say their are differences because it is mean". From what I can there is little controversy over these issues to anyone except with people who don't want to accept the science because it implies unpleasant things. I know very little of what the science actually says on this topic as I haven't done much research. But I find the god in the gaps arguments being used to attack researchers on this subject ironic and disgusting.

Nobody said anything is "mean" other than you kiddo

You can't even frame these issues in real terminology, if you knew anything about brain volume and cortical thickness you might be citing studies that found smaller volume in women than men, but thicker cortices in women (cognitive advantage) which soon ran into trouble when studies also concluded that men were far more variable in volume and cortical thickness than women, making the innate biological determination along gender lines harder to pin down.

But go ahead and claim counter arguments think it's "mean" if you can't be an adult about this

 

[Kindacrazy]

Nobody said anything is "mean" other than you kiddo

You can't even frame these issues in real terminology, if you knew anything about brain volume and cortical thickness you might be citing studies that found smaller volume in women than men, but thicker cortices in women (cognitive advantage) which soon ran into trouble when studies also concluded that men were far more variable in volume and cortical thickness than women, making the innate biological determination along gender lines harder to pin down.

But go ahead and claim counter arguments think it's "mean" if you can't be an adult about this

I didn't bother making an argument because you aren't making one. I paraphrased your position, I didn't quote you.

Yes I am sure we could discuss many specific potential causes and reasons for differences in the specific measured capacities of different population groups. We could speculate all day and undoubtedly all night. Its pointless the measured psychological facts match the sociological outcomes. There is no disagreement, you are attempting to find angles to attack the outcomes of both the psychology and the sociology even when they agree.

Also, just so you are aware having a thicker cortices doesn't make you more intelligent. While it has to some extent been associated with higher performances on specific parts of g tests, it does not specifically correlate to higher relative scores on amalgamation. Brain size does have some correlation although its not a large one.

There is a long list of IQ traits associated with each sex, for example, men tend to be better abstract thinkers because they have a better natural ability to handle complexity. There are some that think this may be due to the higher rate at which blood is pumped through the male brain. But honestly, I haven't read the specific research on the issue and I don't care to because there isn't any reason to. Come back to me when you have some specific research to back up your claims instead of just postulations on the issue. You carry the same burden of proof as you demand.

 

[$uperman]

That doesn't scan bud. IQ is not something that stays fixed at birth. It's been well documented that education affects overall intelligence, and the rise in global IQ historically supports this correlation between education and higher measurable intelligence

Or to put it in simpler terms, your brain needs stimulus to develop. The traditional model of women-at-home with no job other than child-raising did not do favors for brain development or higher rates of education across gender lines, while men had access to education at the same drastic gap you see in the "study"

Nature and nurture are both important.

But you don't want to see the difference in nature between people.

I think the left wants to talk only about nurture. According to them, if a group of humans performs worst than another group of humans it's because of the environment, like racism, sexism, etc. But they don't want to hear about the biological differences between people.

 

[GOATER]

Right Wingers are to be blamed.

“Several colleagues,” she wrote, had warned her that publication would provoke “extremely strong reactions” and there existed a “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.”

It's true.....Right Wingers will feature this to rationalize sexism and women sucking.

Right wingers always cherry pick scientific findings, simplify the finding, and put a spin on it to rationalize bullshit....they essentially get rid of the science.

Of course, when they can't spin a scientific finding, they just call bullshit....see global warming.


However, these scientist shouldn't censor these findings even if dumbfuck right wingers will distort the truth...we can't let right wingers divert us from science.

The scientitic study sounded interesting btw.

 

[esdoornblad]

Using the word "orthogonal" in a sentence does not prove you understand what we're talking about here

Access to education raises IQ. Across gender lines, that resource has not been made available globally to females anywhere close to male access throughout history. That is where your genius count comes from. Access to stimulus.

Your "theory" (I use the expression charitably) predicts that there should be fewer male "idiots" (IQ in the 70-80 range) than female idiots. But the reality is exactly the opposite. Women are less likely to be stupid than men. This is a good illustration of the contrast between philosophy and science.

 

[Sano]

Something seems strange about this whole thing. I mean, if the board voted against the article, maybe it wasn't at the level of accepted publications? We need more information. It's not like there doesn't already exists a plethora of studies and literature on the difference in biological gender.

First paragraph is orthogonal to the notion of inter-group differences. Height is not fixed at birth, and the mean has also risen. Yet there are inter-group height differences. Second paragraph is speculation of the "dime-a-dozen" variety.

This is a good point. One does not exclude the other.

This is a statement made in ignorance. A genius is very likely to have had the same IQ as a toddler since IQ is age adjusted.

Huh? I think you missed the IQ thread. Here's part of a post, replying to a Peterson video.

"The argument that IQ is purely genetic is highly disputed, and does not seem to be the case. Before we go into a few smaller examples, let's talk about the Flynn Effect which is widely recognised as a legitimate phenomenon (6). Psychologists James Flynn, based on emperical data, showed that from 1932 to 1978 the average IQ rose almost 14 points, meaning approximately 3 points per decade. Flynn concluded that this change was due to societal changes, meaning that IQ has epigenetic components. Other studies examining IQ changes over a few years on the same person, especially in children and adolescence, has shown that IQ can change over time, and that environmental factors can impact that change (7, 8). There is no doubt that genetics matter in regards to your IQ, but it doesn't seem to be the only factor.

Interestingly a new study this year from PNAS, which is one of the most respected journals in the world, showed that the Flynn Effect is reversing and presents evidence that this is caused by changes in our environment and society (9). People are getting "dumber" (at least IQ wise)."