Talk:Cognitive differences between sexes

A double standard
I saw that in the section "Brain anatomy" it has been added a disclaim to misogynists, precisely:

I totally agree with the presence of such disclaim (although I would have preferred the entire section to be deleted, as sexist per se), indeed I tried to add a perfectly analog one about women connectomes:

However, my edits keep being reverted by misandrists facefuck IP 141.134.75.236 and.

How, on the one hand, is it understand that claims leading to "men are superior to women" must be followed by a clear disclaim, while, on the other hand, is it tolerated that claims leading to "women are superior to men" are not followed by a similar disclaim ? --Lankaster (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "However, my edits keep being reverted by misandrists facefuck IP 141.134.75.236 and GrammarCommie." I reverted you and protected the page because your edit was childish, the equivalent of a small child throwing a tantrum because they didn't get their way, and you repeatedly added the edit rather than talking it out. Further, if you're going to insult me at least put in more effort than calling me a "facefuck" and accusing me of being a misandrist. 14:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are being a fuckface, you know this, right? I'm treating you like the shit you're being. Anyway you didn't answer to the question: How, on the one hand, is it understand that claims leading to "men are superior to women" must be followed by a clear disclaim, while, on the other hand, is it tolerated that claims leading to "women are superior to men" are not followed by a similar disclaim ? --Lankaster (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop being juvenile. I'm sure this discussion can take place without insults.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought I was a "facefuck" not a "fuckface", please at least make the effort to be consistent. Further, imitating isn't really helping you out, it just bemuses me further. This is why I haven't gotten involved before this point, because you have already exhibited a tendency to attack people you disagree with. Finally, I am not defending either edit, I'm merely stopping you from throwing a tantrum.  15:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "I thought I was a "facefuck" not a "fuckface"" My bad, I'm not used to insult people, so I've difficulties being consistent with insults, I should have ask suggestions to ikanreed. "Further, imitating isn't really helping you out" It's clearly helping to show how a different response I got. First blocked for an unusual long time, then page got protected. In other words, some users are allowed to delete entire sections repeatedly and load a bunch of insults over other users, also calling then sexists, and that's fine... but if other user do the same then they are immediately punished. I think I made this point very clear.


 * Anyway, since now you have stopped me from "throwing a tantrum"... Do you have anything to say about the topic of this thread? Or are you gonna keep ignoring the main question for a third time? I'm really curious to see what amazing justification for the double standard will be proposed. --Lankaster (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you really want me to weigh in? Because I have answered you, I stated that I didn't wish to get involved but that your behavior forced my hand. I have stated that I do not wish to weigh in, yet that is apparently not an acceptable answer. (For you at least.) 16:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't answer, fine. Just another faulty system in action: I do some "aggressive" edits, and I write a motivation on the talk page -> Page gets protected by GrammarCommie because of the edits war and he says "(take it to the talkpage)", but GrammarCommie has no intention to discuss my motivation for the edits on the talk page. So, what's the point of talk page? And don't tell me that I should discuss with an anonymous IP address who has all the reasons to not agree with me, since the page is locked in the version he wish. --Lankaster (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, since you're so passive-aggressively insistent, I'll answer, but you won't like it. From all the information shown so far it's clear that your conclusions are incorrect, and possibly dishonest. There, I answered you honestly, and without any filters. Are you happy? No, of course you aren't. Does my answer change anything? Nope, not a damned thing. The end. 17:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Fine, since you're so passive-aggressively insistent, I'll answer" OK, I'm all ears.
 * Question: How, on the one hand, is it understand that claims leading to "men are superior to women" must be followed by a clear disclaim, while, on the other hand, is it tolerated that claims leading to "women are superior to men" are not followed by a similar disclaim ?
 * GrammarCommie's answer: From all the information shown so far it's clear that your conclusions are incorrect, and possibly dishonest. There, I answered you honestly, and without any filters. Are you happy? No, of course you aren't. Does my answer change anything? Nope, not a damned thing. The end.
 * Whats!? Anybody who is able to see how that's an answer to the posed question deserves a prize... 😂 😂 --Lankaster (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I replied to you concerning the main thrust of your edits, and the reason for the edit war. You can continue to ask "How, on the one hand, is it understand that claims leading to "men are superior to women" must be followed by a clear disclaim, while, on the other hand, is it tolerated that claims leading to "women are superior to men" are not followed by a similar disclaim ?" all you like, but that's a triviality in concern to the big picture, i.e. why I locked the page and reverted your edits.


 * You wanted to know why I locked the page and reverted your edits, I answered. As predicted you aren't happy, nor has anything changed. 17:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "I replied to you concerning the main thrust of your edits" So you didn't even understand which was the question, although I made it very clear ("Anyway you didn't answer to the question: How, on the one hand, is it understand that claims leading to "men are superior to women" must be followed by a clear disclaim, while, on the other hand, is it tolerated that claims leading to "women are superior to men" are not followed by a similar disclaim ?", "Or are you gonna keep ignoring the main question for a third time?"). Don't worry, I'm not gonna ask you again to answer the question. Say whatever you want, but if is off-topic (i.e., not about the question of this thread) I'm gonna ignore it. --Lankaster (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It is time to consider what you hope to accomplish by continuing this line of discussion. It should be obvious to you that many users of this wiki are strongly pro-feminist and, some are sensitive to certain implications. I would also point out that the concept of superior, when not referring to your favorite fast food joint, often has an ideological slant. In what sense is one person, of any variety, superior to another person? In general there is no good reason to rank people in this way. With this in mind, why not apply your efforts to another article?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "It is time to consider what you hope to accomplish by continuing this line of discussion." Well, the title is "A double standard", and it seems to me that the responses I'm getting are showing that indeed there's a biiiig double standard... "It should be obvious to you that many users of this wiki are strongly pro-feminist and, some are sensitive to certain implications." And don't you think that's a problem? Shouldn't RationalWiki don't give a fuck about "sensitive strongly pro-feminists user" (similarly as it don't give a fuck about sensitive strongly god believers, etc.) but cares only of reason and evidences? And please don't link me to this which, it goes without saying, it's not an argument... "In general there is no good reason to rank people in this way" I totally agree, and in fact I never ranked anybody... I never said men or women are superior, I never said one sex is more intelligent than the other, ... The charges against me are all suppositions of other users about what I think. "why not apply your efforts to another article?" As I said, this should be based on reason and evidences, not on "work only on the articles which do not make angry the sensitive users". --Lankaster (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no charges against you. There is minimal utility in being defensive. If you feel you have nothing to apologize for, don't apologize. What you could do is work around the criticism and try your best to contribute. I invite you to do so. Don't be put off by bullying, and for (deity of your choice)'s-sake don't act like a bully.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you completely ignored all the points raised in my last response... but, hey, I got that's custom around here. "try your best to contribute. I invite you to do so." Are you kidding? A moderator explicitly told me that I have "no consensus" here, and that he will block me if I make the edit proposed in this thread. Also, now I see that the entire page is going to be rewritten by "the consensus", even the title is under questioning! Come on... --Lankaster (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is going to block you for making an edit. You were warned not to remove large sections of text out of frustration. If people don't like your edit, it won't last long. The mob rules here. If you keep restoring rejected edits you may get blocked. If you think a moderator has been unfair to you you can ask another moderator to intervene. But my advice is not to do so over a trivial matter. A disclaimer to inform misandrists they should not make hasty conclusions is downright silly. I think they are getting your goat... tsk.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC).


 * Alright, I'll fess up. I'm a pretty blatant misandrist. The fate of men stirs my emotions far less than the fate of women. It's a simple fact. I didn't choose it that way. However, I will not tolerate being accused of fucking faces! Oral sex is disgusting and I would never have any part in it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sex is disgusting in general. 😜 20:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, but the thought of the same orifice being used to eat, kiss and fuck gives me the creeps. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * and don't forget "sex" pronounced backwards is "excess".Ariel31459 (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)"

Lankaster, if you really are interested in shaping up and helping the community, identifying stuff as misandry is almost always a dog whistle for MRA/Red Pill kind of stuff. At best, it only critiques a very loud stereotypical branch of feminism, and at worst, it's used to derail legitimate claims of feminism by tarring them all with the same brush. For all the difficulties that men struggle with, they are nowhere near as legion as women's problems in the contemporary world. Indeed, were it to be said that women's brains have better neural connections than men, and that somehow did translate to more intelligence whether as a polemic or even in the form of some science, it would be likely be used as an effective weapon against said MRA and Red Pillers, who will often go out of their way to tear women down and take away any strength they have or even just some harmless bragging as being hateful or whatever. It's about as harmful as when Kat Blaque, a black rights blogger, saying to racist white shitheads that black people have better genes and that's why white guys are afraid of interracial porno where they're cucked by black guys. Taking down something like that as equal racism is completely off the mark. Totally false comparison James Earl Cash (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just putting it out there, but oppression olympics is always deleterious and to be avoided. And approving of civil rights/equality activists using racist rhetoric is pretty assuredly a bad idea. RW supports feminism and seeks to avoid feeding MRA trolls/a-holes. These are perfectly defensible positions in their own right, so let's not muddy the waters here. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the privilege that others have, usually a privilege that enables them to ignore to step on others who don't share said privilege, whether consciously or unconsciously, is far from oppression olympics. Similarly, anyone tarring said disadvantaged people with the same brush when using equally racist rhetoric against some alt-right figure advocating for a white ethno-state or likewise thinking that non-white/transgender people, people who are largely disadvantaged, saying, "All white people are trash," or, "All cis people are trash," as harmful no matter what the context is being disingenuous. Not in this contemporary era. You might as well take issue with MLK when he directly condemns white moderates as a problem to black equality. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This thread is not about racism. Please stop. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's equally bad, I'm saying it's disingenious (and still kinda bad). Is getting a little bit of "verbal retributive justice" worth it when it ends up distracting from the goal of social progress and you're actually making everything worse for everyone involved? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not distracting from the goal of social progress, it's the very definition of it. Being able to toss a bigot's words back in their face, or better yet, storming their events and shutting them down, is more effective than treating them with a gentle touch, whether it's some kind of half-assed debate or simply writing them off as not worth it. Certainly it helps not to have so-called allies shut down them while ignoring the scum that started it in the first place. Even here, if people hadn't intervened here to the point of callousness, I don't think there would be calls to massively rewrite this page which is LONG overdue. Although I didn't even see that Lankaster had been massively insulting to Mario in the history section over "misandry." Yikes. I need to take my own advice for once.


 * When these kind of politics are analogous to the situation on the talk page Ariel, you better believe I'm gonna double down. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't see how violence and incitement to violence can make their cause seem more justified? Not sure how that helps anyone. We can certainly disagree on whether the eventual outcome will help social progress or not, I might be more pessimistic about it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think people should be more sympathetic to victims than the perpetrators, especially when said perpetrators are the worst kind of people imaginable. Pardon me if I don't give a rat's ass when free speech warrior Milo Yiannopoulos, who has used his platform to openly identify and incite harassment of trans students as well as used his one time appearance on Bill Maher to shit all over gay people, has his stage stormed by protestors every single time since the only free speech he cares about is his when it's attacking people. Or when Antifa prevents crybaby Neo-Nazi thugs from gathering through threats and direct acts of physical violence when the latter outright killed Heather Heyer. The only debate he and people like him want is one where people ask "How high?" when they say jump. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The point was to present as much science as possible without politics. We are so often led out of our comfort zones. Again, racism is irrelevant on this page. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think Lankaster actually meant those insults to me, I think he's resorting to juvenile playground behavior mocking ikanreed's callousness (even down to calling people "facefuck"). That kind of behavior is even less acceptable than ikanreed's insults, especially when it's coupled with erasing content with mocking strawman justifications, which reminds me of a temper tantrum.
 * Ariel, why should we leave politics out of it? You just can't and it's, for a lack of a better word, cowardly and not helpful; the two are connected. 00:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mario: then you need to learn some better words. They are only connected if you want them to be so connected. There is no natural nexus. It is what you want. Don't blame reality for your own voyeurism.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no escaping politics. You can try all you want, but you're going to leave out key components of the debate and you'll leave out why we're studying this in the first place. And I don't see what's inappropriate about bringing race into this because gender differences manifest in different ways across races as well. 01:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Before this (hopefully it doesn't) gets out of hand, I have to add I was just making a simple analogy that was in the spirit of the current norm over this page. Misogyny and misandry are not the same in the current political climate and the same is true for other things as well. That's why there was a big ruckus over this page in the first place. If anon IP person and others take issue with that, then I'm going to have to say otherwise. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Misogyny and misandry are not the same in the current political climate" I agree. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Politics has its say about what money will be spent where. It doesn't affect reality, which is what concerns scientists. Let me explain why race is inappropriate to bring into the discussion: the science is not well-understood when race is not a factor. Science can study politics, political behaviors of the right or left, or the middle. Politicians cannot effectively evaluate science.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Politics is actually better defined by what policies should be imposed. Politics obviously affects reality (history of oppressive laws have impact on societal expectations which in turn lead to gender expectations which in turn can impact brain development, and that's only one facet of what laws, especially over time, does to society and even individuals) but we also study reality to try to impose policies that adhere to this reality while also serving civilization. Politicians, like anyone else, theoretically should rely on experts to help support policy, which is an effective way to evaluate science. Finally, if we can't translate scientists find into policy, what is the point of studying these differences? Knowledge is power. 01:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What you describe is more like a meta-political hypothesis. The idea that politics can be controlled is not unlike the notion that bulls can be ridden. It would be sweet if scientific methods could sort the effects of political environments on physical development of human brains. Not likely any time soon, unless you want to create a narrative that suits you. Finally, I am not a defender of the existence of this article. If you don't like it and don't want to fix it yourself, nominate it for deletion. I would second the motion (if it makes you happy).Ariel31459 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

MRA, Red Pillers, black rights, interracial porno, alt-right, ethno-state, cis people, MLK, verbal retributive justice, Milo Yiannopoulos, Bill Maher, Antifa, Neo-Nazi, Heather Heyer... all of these because somebody dared to reference a scientific paper about men and women brains weights. Guys, you're completely nuts. You're simply not able to handle this topic, I'm not surprised somebody is calling for a deletion of the article. Do it if you want but, please, keep this talk page, it's simply amazing! --Lankaster (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You've got nothing to worry about there. We always keeps the talk pages of deleted articles. Spud (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This entire article needs a lot of "more detail please"
I said this before, but this article is not helpful or informative. A lot of it is a bunch of study findings with no more explanation or detail. I looked at the the first bullet point: anorexia. The article says plainly that "it's diagnosed more in women than in men" but in the citation given (I can't look beyond the abstract), I see right there that there is a huge caveat: it's extremely rare in black females. This is a strong case of where gender roles and cultural upbringing has a clearer impact on diagnosis of this disorder. There is no discussion either of how our culture on body image has been exported and negatively affected rates of diagnosis for anorexia. This is a major omission and moreso, we should not be littering articles with bare, plain statements like this.

The first two sentences in that section are very lame. "This could be because of biological differences between male and female brains, and theories in such regard have been proposed, or it could be because the same mental illness is more diagnosed for a sex than the other, although it occurs with the same frequency." This is a disgustingly incomplete statement and isn't doing our article a service. It does not go into how mental health diseases are diagnosed (people look at patterns of behavior and if this behavior is having a negative effect on people; this can be limited to culture too; if symptoms of ADHD does not negatively impact living, it wouldn't be diagnosed). What theories? Crappy ones? Good ones? Proposed by whom? I don't see any sort of attempt to control by race or culture. There is no discussion of a possible coinciding, as people can have multiple disorders like those with ADHD. There is no discussion of external factors like gender roles and unhealthy expectations that lead to anxiety or substance abuse. Actually, the dyslexia and ADHD sections do a better job, but the rest are crap and don't convey meaningful information. I don't think citations are supposed to substitute for meaningful information that can be derived from statements.

This is also the same for brain matter. I'm not a psychologist. I don't study brains. What the hell does "male brains are optimized for intrahemispheric communication, while female brains for interhemispheric communication" or " The midsagittal areas and fiber numbers of the anterior commissure (connecting the temporal lobes) as well as the massa intermedia (connecting the thalami) were found to be larger in women than in men?" mean or even imply to cognitive sex differences? Jargon is not useful for our readers either. I mean, yeah, you can put little Wikipedia links, but why not improve the writing too? 21:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 *  141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I added that stuff about the midsagittal areas and massa intermedia in the sake of balance when it turned out there was information missing from the references, just for clarification on how women's brain were larger than men's in some areas when the original statement only said that men's brains were larger women's without any doubt, definitely leading to problematic interpretations. Had hoped to try and hose down the inferno before it became a full on wildfire. But yeah...this article was going to have a rough time from the beginning given it's original author.


 * And, well, I might have wanted to give Lankaster the benefit of the doubt, but between some of the rough grammar, the temper tantrums, and now recently trying to argue for the legitimacy of an arbitrary label like race, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if this is a McLaghing sockpuppet. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see where you're going at but to me, it's confusing jargon and a little explanation can go a long way. Like, you can summarize "this means some areas are bigger in women brains and others are larger in men brains". Ultimately, do these sizes really mean anything? Like, having a big nose or big ears are just, well, big noses and big ears. 01:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I speak just as a spectator, since it's clear to me that I can't touch this article anymore. I would like to see all the details you are asking for to be added to the page. Although my reasons are different than your: I'm interested in the truth, you are worried about what interpretations missing details would lead to.
 * Anyway, I bet that the article will turn into shit very soon, with every sentence being replaced by a nonsexist disclaim, probably even the title will be changed... Also, good luck with trying to bring into the discussion race, which accordingly to RW does not exists. --Lankaster (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "you are worried about what interpretations missing details would lead to"
 * This has nothing to do with my post, which is more about "more details please" which anyone who cares about quality agrees. It's not about the subject matter, it's a generic criticism of an article's quality that can be applied to any article that doesn't go far enough beyond "studies show x" bare assertions. Wanting less jargon, clearer writing, and well-known caveats from statements is a pursuit for truth. 23:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

so uh...
Hate to beat a dead horse, but as long as this page is up, thought I'd bring up the section about women's empathy which ikanreed and Lankaster fought over, only for the latter to re-insert it at the last minute. Does it stay or go? James Earl Cash (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In best choice order: If objected to one of lankaster's edits, he should be the one to remove it. If you want to remove anything you should verify that it should be removed by checking with ikanreed,  or by utilizing due diligence. There are only 4  users watching this page, and I for one don't care.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to be doing a lot of cutting over the next few days based on the relevance of individual citations to indivudal claims. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 06:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you talking of this section?


 * Because it is essentially a quote from the meta-analysis [1], so if you want to delete it then you should make a strong argument explaining why meta-analysis [1] is trash and cannot be cited. --Lankaster (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Item 1 greater male variability hypothesis(at least given the citation we use)
Sorry actually I have to explain tomorrow ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 06:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, sorry, staying up to 2 am reading papers and arguing was a patently bad idea. First off the paper itself is fine, and doesn't have substantial methodological errors or anything, as long as you, the reader, take pains to understand what it's actually doing.  Things like sibling control and the large sample sizes are great, e.g.
 * So here's the deal, if you take a look at the actual paper, not just the abstract, you'll see that the raw measurement they were taking was not actually IQ, but ASVAB scores that they then use as a proxy measure for IQ, by approximating g-loadings then averaging. Proxy measures are normally okay for establishing rough correlations, but that's not what they're doing here, they're using it to attune data highly sensitive to variation, like standard deviation, then using that standard deviation to validate a hypothesis, not about the raw measure, but the proxy measure.  This means every sensitivity gets amplified to hell.  In particular, I want to draw your attention to table 1, the different sections of the ASVAB and their relative standard deviation measurement, the very big gaps come from things like "auto shop information" and "electronics knowledge", and to a much lesser extent science and arithmetic.  These are skills that are very much coded "male" in our culture, as you definitely tend to see fewer young women in high school shop classes.  Notably, the category of questions with the single highest g-loading had a standard deviation gender ratio of... 1.000.  Hm.
 * But nonetheless the experimental design gives these measures a fairly high g-loading coefficent in figure 1. Because of course intelligence also affects performance in these areas.  Because you have a much higher population segment of young men who take shop classes(but far from all of them) this would, in my conjecture(grant for examining this please), create a bimodal distribution with an illusory higher standard deviation.  Just a couple such categories out of 8, especially lacking any categories culturally weighted "against" men's "typical" interests raises fundamental and unignorable questions about the experiment's credibility for establishing what we used it as a citation for, namely that IQ shows greater variability in men.
 * Now, none of this is me saying the greater male variability is bunk, but if we want to state it about IQ and so robustly, a study that uses something highly g-loaded out of the gate, like raven's progressive matrices would be a far superior choice. This one doesn't really do so.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "a study that uses something highly g-loaded out of the gate, like raven's progressive matrices would be a far superior choice." I haven't read it yet, I have just googled "sex differences matrices" and found this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289604000492, see here for a free link: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0b57/05682a13dd538493ec1400e167e752d8c92b.pdf --Lankaster (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, but that's unfortunately not really backing the greater variability hypothesis, it's just suggesting a gendered difference starting at 15(though only in some countries). So definetly don't use that citation to re-add it.  It's an entirely different question.  And then the author to your study did a followup meta-analysis that explicitly rejects the greater male variability hypothesis.  And, in turn, I'd be hesitant to use that paper for the assertions on means varying, in turn, because of the age and locations of underlying sources, when more recent research also directly contests the hypothesis that there's a developmentally delayed male g-factor superiority.   More broadly, some scholars have directly rebuffed Richard Lynn's hypothesis(and the greater variability hypothesis as well).  This is an arguable point either way, but I don't know there's preponderance of evidence at all, and as such, would prefer the wiki avoid taking an editorial stance.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked and I agree that such study of Lynn and Irwing wasn't about males IQ variance. Anyway, going back to the article discussed in this thread: "Now, none of this is me saying the greater male variability is bunk" I think at this point it would be better to make a section about male variability in intelligence, and to move that study there, from the IQ section. --Lankaster (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When I said that, I also wasn't saying it was true and well supported. It's a widely discussed theory, but if we're gonna talk about it at all, we should at least establish a baseline of credible evidence that backs it.  The presumption of difference isn't a great approach.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "It's a widely discussed theory" Exactly, so it makes perfectly sense to mention it on this page. "if we're gonna talk about it at all, we should at least establish a baseline of credible evidence that backs it." I disagree, RW talks about homeopathy, psychic surgery, ... BECAUSE they are no credible evidences backing that, but they are widely discussed. Anyway, there's another article already on the page and supporting the greater male variability hypothesis in intelligence:
 * Item 2 (greater male variability hypothesis in intelligence): Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants
 * Table 1 shows a greater standard deviation for all male measures, compared with female measure.
 * Quote: "There is more to sex differences than averages: there are physical and psychological traits that tend to be more variable in males than females. The best-studied human phenotype in this context has been cognitive ability: almost universally, studies have found that males show greater variance in this trait (Deary et al. 2007a; Johnson et al. 2008; Lakin 2013; though see Iliescu et al. 2016)." --Lankaster (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that content is complete shit and reinforces my opinion that you ignore the overall tenor of evidence to try and back as much misogynist shit as you can find and grossly misunderstand. If you got anything even remotely like that from the discussion and sources we've had in this particular conversation here, I cannot fathom that you're approaching this remotely honestly.  We have multiple sources that use much more reliable measures that outright rebuff  the greater variability hypothesis, and your new link does basically nothing to validate it.  Pull up the supplemental materials, they didn't even measure variability on the two cognitive abilities they measured(reaction time and verbal reasoning).  Please stop just searching google scholar for the first paper that matches the one keyword that you read most recently.    ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "No, that content is complete shit" Here we go again... Could you please be precise in your calling things shit criticisms? I pointed out to an article, Table 1 of such article, and a quote from such article. Which of these contents is shit? Is the article, the table, the quote, all of them... ? I really don't understand --Lankaster (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at the UK Biobank article for myself, and they outright admit that caution should be taken into interpreting the cognitive test results. The article itself gives a caveat on using the intelligence conclusions to mean anything substantial. I don't think it's a shit study, but if you insist on using this material, you should be aware that the testers themselves admitted it wasn't as thorough as it could be and it shouldn't be used as a substitute for an actual IQ test or something similar. It was also used only on older people. It's a paper meant to advance research, not something ready to break ground. I'm not even a scientist and I know that most science is a series of straws on the camel's back and sometimes not even that, not the final one which breaks it. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "it shouldn't be used as a substitute for an actual IQ test or something similar." I agree. I wasn't referring to such study regarding the page section on IQ, I was regarding the greater male variability hypothesis in intelligence. The UK Biobank studies shows that variability of brain structures is greater in males than females. Of course that does not implies that the variability of males intelligence (however you want to measure it, by IQ or other metrics...) is automatically higher than females', but it's something pointing in that direction. "It's a paper meant to advance research, not something ready to break ground." I don't know want you mean, but I'm not thinking about a section saying "greater male variability is TRUE" of "greater male variability is FALSE". Such section should collect the evidences in one and in the other direction. --Lankaster (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, one of the actual closing paragraphs outright said that their testing for intelligence could have been better. Saying something is pointing in that direction is specious too given the above. The authors said that anyone trying to prematurely use their conclusions to make a greater claim about the brain was problematic, and this was just a bunch of preliminary testing. It's like deciding that some straight A student in elementary school biology is some trailblazer. If you really want to include this paper, you gotta include all the caveats too. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And when I started this discussion, that's where I was too, but after following citation trails of papers citing that paper, it's become clear that research going further on that exact question have mostly rebuffed the idea. Further evidence has not been kind to the greater male variability hypothesis, pop-psych popular though it may be.  I'm still not saying it's wrong, based on just two papers that concluded it was, but I'm ready to say "no, don't even think of making rationalwiki claim it as though it's well supported".  It's sad, because I remember by 5 or so years ago, I remember describing the hypothesis to my own mother as I had just learned about it and thought it was an interesting idea, which makes me feel like a complete dolt now.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave so much precise descriptions of the nature of the problems with citing male variability hypothesis as true throughout this conversation, from papers that literally, in their own summation claim to rebut it, to the deep and abiding problems with the study we cited at first, to the complete irrelevance of the new links you brought up, only for you to propose a wording that's not even in the same ballpark as reality. I don't think it's warranted or appropriate to give you "more specific" criticism at this point.  Drag your ass back through the discussion that actually happened, actually read the linked studies in non-superficial manner, peruse don't browse, read the tables, look at the data, understand the methodology, appreciate the analysis, try to come to grips with how that informed the posts I've already made, and try, please, just try, to come up with a sentence that isn't explicitly rebuffed by sources that approached the claim as a hypothesis, and stop doing original synthesis about what you think brain regions do and how they make gender differences in actual cognition especially when contradicted by the goddamn cognition variables in the same fucking studies you cite.  Seriously, stop doing that.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a very simple question in order to understand you, and you didn't answer. I don't know how I should be supposed to have a conversation with you in this way. --Lankaster (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm trying very hard to not be too harsh about this. But what part of "the jist of what you're trying to say has been explicitly refuted in the literature" is really missing you?  I know that that's not the only thing I've said, but it's a thing I've said multiple times, it's not unclear or understated.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "But what part of "the jist of what you're trying to say has been explicitly refuted in the literature" is really missing you?" No part, got it loud an clear. The problem is that it is not an answer to the question of my post of 18:32, 3 October 2018. I posted Item 2, with consists of three things, you called the content "shit", I asked you which of the three parts you were referring to, and you still didn't answer my question... and I bet that in your next post you won't. --Lankaster (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just chiming in but if Lankaster doesn't "get" some very basic reading comprehension for the past 40,000+ bytes ago, I can't imagine him "getting" it now. 19:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And here he comes with just a sentence whose only purpose is claiming a lack of my reading comprehension skill, because that's what a good impartial moderator does, right? Since you think that you have better reading comprehension skills than me, read ikanreed's post of 19:10, 3 October 2018 and tell me exactly where he answered to the question I posed in my post of 18:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC). --Lankaster (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Try to focus on what you are trying to do: communicate with ikanreed. You are locked out, he is not. If you can't persuade him by answering any objections he may have, you won't be able to edit the article.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I bring it up because I don't trust you at all and you had your chances to better yourself. Sorry I made an opinion you don't like. 23:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Try to focus on what you are trying to do: communicate with ikanreed." Tell me how I should communicate with somebody who - after I pointed out an article, a table, and a quote; after he replied with "that content is complete shit"; and after I asked him "Which of these contents is shit? Is the article, the table, the quote, all of them... ?" - keeps not answering my question. --Lankaster (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What a surprise, avoided answering the question:  Since you think that you have better reading comprehension skills than me, read ikanreed's post of 19:10, 3 October 2018 and tell me exactly where he answered to the question I posed in my post of 18:32, 3 October 2018. --Lankaster (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ""No, that content is complete shit" Here we go again... Could you please be precise in your calling things shit criticisms? I pointed out to an article, Table 1 of such article, and a quote from such article. Which of these contents is shit? Is the article, the table, the quote, all of them... ? I really don't understand" in response to "No, that content is complete shit and reinforces my opinion that you ignore the overall tenor of evidence to try and back as much misogynist shit as you can find and grossly misunderstand. If you got anything even remotely like that from the discussion and sources we've had in this particular conversation here, I cannot fathom that you're approaching this remotely honestly. We have multiple sources that use much more reliable measures that outright rebuff the greater variability hypothesis, and your new link does basically nothing to validate it. Pull up the supplemental materials, they didn't even measure variability on the two cognitive abilities they measured(reaction time and verbal reasoning). Please stop just searching google scholar for the first paper that matches the one keyword that you read most recently." Looks like responded just fine to, Lankaster just doesn't like the response and is now ignoring it and claiming it didn't happen.  09:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Lankaster just doesn't like the response and is now ignoring it and claiming it didn't happen." it seems you don't understand which response I'm claiming Ikanreed never gave me. Ikanreed replied to my post of 07:53, 3 October 2018 saying "No, that content is complete shit...", then I asked him (my post of 18:32, 3 October 2018) which content (because I posted three things) is complete shit according to him. Now I'm saying he never asked to that question. If you are able to find his answer, then tell me, I'm all ears. --Lankaster (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "No, one of the actual closing paragraphs outright said that their testing for intelligence could have been better." I'm not talking about their tests for intelligence. I'm talking about the measures they did on brain structures. My point actually it's really easy:
 * (1) There's this greater male variability hypothesis in intelligence (for short GMVHI), which says (essentially) that the variance in the normal curve of the distribution of males intelligence is greater than the variance of females'.
 * (2) All the brain structures measured in the experiment of the UK Biobank article (see Table 1) show an higher variance for males than females.
 * (3) If higher variance in brain structures implies higher variance in intelligence, then the data of the UK Biobank supports the GMVHI.
 * What do you think? --Lankaster (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently reading skills are not your forte, because I quoted the exact response to your comment. The response occurred, you just don't like it. Whether it addresses your points is not the same as whether the comment actually exists, which as anyone can see, it verifiabley does. 11:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Apparently reading skills are not your forte, because I quoted the exact response" In your post of 09:05, 4 October you did not quote the iranreed's post of 19:10, 3 October 2018 (your link "exact response"), you quoted iranreed's post of 14:26, 3 October 2018, which occurred before my post of 18:32, 3 October 2018. --Lankaster (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Three major points. 1) Just link the godsdamned edits instead of listing timestamps. 2) This wouldn't be a problem if you didn't ad hoc edit threads, such as here. 3) STOP AD HOC EDITING THREADS!! IT'S A PAIN IN THE ASS TO CLEAN UP!!! Hence that post I linked will be removed from where it is and placed at the bottom of the thread, where it belongs. Don't like it? Tough shit. 12:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You got confused with the posts and made a mistake... no problem, it happens. But now don't blame this on me, it's your fault. (1) OK, I wasn't aware that's possible, I agree that's actually better. (2), (3) What do you mean by "ad hoc edit threads"? My experience with wikis is that you reply to an user by writing just below his comment, adding an indentation. If I'm wrong doing this, please tell me how should I reply correctly.
 * All this does not mean that now you can change subject. My post had a simple precise question, whose answer can only be "I was referring to [article/Table 1/quote]..." and Iranreed never answered me, it doesn't matter if he replies if his reply does not answer the question. --Lankaster (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna restate something really fucking important: stop doing original synthesis about what you think brain regions do and how they make gender differences in actual cognition especially when contradicted by the goddamn cognition variables in the same fucking studies you cite, because you're still doing it, no matter how you format those bad deductions. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page, everybody can do any kind of synthesis he wants in order to make his points. --Lankaster (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The bullshit synthesis is the text you wanted to add to the article, directly at odds with actual research, you fucking dishonest hack. "It's my right to say this dumb, wrong thing" is about as asinine and pointless as debate gets.  I don't know what goddamn deep insecurity you're covering up with your obsession with gendered intelligence, but holy hell is it apparent do you not actually give a single fuck about accurately representing the state of the field of cognition research.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "you fucking dishonest hack." If I had a nickel for every time you insult me... ""It's my right to say this dumb, wrong thing" is about as asinine" Ehm, the quotation marks are for things the other person actually said. I never spoken about rights. My claim was about the function of the talk page, which includes making synthesis in order to make one's points. "I don't know what goddamn deep insecurity you're covering up with your obsession with gendered intelligence" Personal attack, here we go again... Since you want to make it personal: Why is so difficult for you to have a polite constructive conversation with people you have a disagreement with? Really, think about it: From the beginning you covered me with insults, and you made no effort what so ever to address precisely my points (I'm still waiting for an answer to my post). You approach was to delete everything, and now you are telling that I have to stop to write some things on the talk page. Let's say that I'm the dishonest sexists dumbass you think I am... So? Bad for me. Why this cause you so much anger? I cannot edit the page, so I cannot do damages. Instead you are furious. A guy who knows so much about cognitive sciences like you, should also know that your behavior is not the sign of a healthy personality. --Lankaster (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to have constructive dialog with people who don't discuss things with a modicum intellectual honesty, but only want to be "right", regardless of whether I'm polite in that conversation or not. So... who cares?  As to explicitly rebuffing that reply... again, have you actually read the conversation we've already had?  It addresses the problems pretty thoroughly.  Don't know how many times "hypothesis explicitly rejected by research that examined it directly" needs to be repeated.  Don't know how many times "your original synthesis that is contradicted by empirical measurement is not reasonable" need to be repeated.  Don't know how many times "the research you're citing doesn't address the question you're acting like it does" needs to be repeated.  These aren't problems you can solve with pedantry.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I warned already, if Lankaster has failed basic reading comprehension probably at least fifty times already, I don't expect him to suddenly reform and say "Oh, oops, my bad" or ask "what part am I not getting" (he did ask this somewhat about specifying "content" but ikanreed gave a fuller response that, while doesn't technically answer the specifics of that question, should answer that question all together) and continue either talk about how mean we are to him or reiterate his arguments and claim that no one has responded to his challenges. It's pretty dishonest and I feel civility at this point is giving Lankaster too much credit. He can protest, "But you're an impartial mod", that's because I arrived at a conclusion he didn't like. I'm sure other impartial mods can evaluate the argument and conclude that ikanreed's arguments, overlooking the tone, are stronger and Lankaster is just dragging the conversation draining whatever shred of honesty and benefit of doubt he deserves. 18:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Brain structures variance and intelligence variance
Premise: The whole talk page got so entangled and messy that is essentially impossible (at least for me) to continue the conversation in the previous threads. To avoid polemics, I say that it is entirely my fault, because I have lacked of reading comprehension.

This thread: For who is still interested in the conversation about greater male variability in intelligence hypothesis (GMVIH), here I post my brief explanation of why I think that the data of Table 1 of the article Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants supports GMVIH. By this I do not mean that GMVIH is correct, neither I mean that there are no evidences against GMVIH (so do not reply with a study against GMVIH, because that is not the topic of this thread). I just mean that Table 1 goes in the bucket of evidences supporting GMVIH.

If you reply, please do not do it by pointing to other posts of this talk page, but start from zero. If you think that you have already confuted my argument, then just ignore this thread. I am not going to edit the article page anyway.

My argument:

The greater male variability in intelligence hypothesis (GMVIH) is the claim that the variance of the distribution of males intelligence is greater than the variance of females'.

(1) All the quantities related to brain structures measured in the UK Biobank study (see Table 1) have a greater variance for males than females.

(2) It seems plausible that greater variance of brain structures would lead to greater variance of intelligence.

(3) From (1) and (2) it follows that the data of Table 1 of the UK Biobank study supports GMVIH. --Lankaster (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Which remains a terrible argument in the face of actual empirical evidence saying otherwise. How on earth are you holding "it seems plausible" against structured, researched evidence saying the opposite?  You get that this is just you making an assumption(2) that isn't grounded on anything specific established scientific theory, and then formulating a conclusion that is then directly and unequivocally contradicted by evidence.  In scienceland that would be an invalidation of your hypothesis.  In argueforeveroverpointlessbullshitland, you're gonna just keep repeating yourself over and over forever, and no one wins. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since your last statement to me was drowned out in a big ol convo chain Lankaster, I'll say right now that the actual Burbank study itself admitted there were methodology problems. If you want to include this table, you have to include all the other issues the researchers admitted with their study. You can't just say that it goes and points to such a conclusion. And like I've said earlier, it's a foundational study. It's like using the time I rushed a mandatory eighth grade Science Fair project by microwaving M&Ms and they all melted except for the yellow ones. If there are that many precautions to be taken, why include it at all? This is a study from August of this year, mind you. Let's include evidence from a study that's meant to be more precise, not something which admitted to problems and recommended future testing for better conclusions. I feel like you're going for objective scientific neutrality in a situation which doesn't really warrant it. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, how many times are you going to keep repeating "BUT SEE TABLE 1"? 01:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "If you want to include this table, you have to include all the other issues the researchers admitted with their study." At this point, I'm not really willing to edit the article page, I just wanted to make clear what was my argument because, as you said, it drowned in the thread. "This is a study from August of this year, mind you. Let's include evidence from a study that's meant to be more precise, not something which admitted to problems and recommended future testing for better conclusions." I think this is a kind of trade off: If we want studies with a large sample of brains and which measured many quantities, then we have to rely on very recent studies, with all the problems of being "new" studies they have; If we want studies whose conclusions have being checked multiplies times, then we have to rely on old studies, with small sample of brains and few measured quantities.
 * "You get that this is just you making an assumption(2) that isn't grounded on anything specific established scientific theory" If (2) is false, this means that it is possible that the distribution of brain structures-related quantities of a group of people has a high variance, although the variance of the distribution of intelligence of the same group is low. In other words: people can have very different brains on a macroscopic scale, although their level of intelligence are similar. Are you aware of a study that reached such conclusion? --Lankaster (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, is there a reason you focused on one small bit and ignored the rest of what I said? Despite all the chaos I've been willing to entertain the notion you're coming from a place of good faith here wrong though it may be, but I'm starting to rethink that idea. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Okay, is there a reason you focused on one small bit and ignored the rest of what I said?" I think I addressed your main points. Maybe you expected a direct answer to your question "If there are that many precautions to be taken, why include it at all?" but to me the answer is still: "I think this is a kind of trade off: ...". To make it more clear respect how you formulate the question, my answer is: All recent studies require precautions, establishing that they should not be included for such reason means including only old studies that indeed are more solid, but lack large brains sample and have few quantities measured. If you think there is still something I did not answer, point to that and I'll do. --Lankaster (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm not sure how accurate that is that older studies worked with few samples as opposed to this one. Secondly, the main reason for not including this study isn't how recent it is, but that it admits it had a lot of problems with the methodology. When how new it is is also taken into the equation and directly recommends that further testing be done, then it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. As a final note, I'll also say that focusing on one dubious finding without much backing as some kind of scientific hypothesis is unbelievably sketchy. You're coming off like a flat earth theorist or someone promoting homeopathy. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)