Talk:Cognitive differences between sexes

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon psychology.svg

This Psychology related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Jellybrain.png
This article requires attention for the following reason(s):

Article appears to be ideologically slanted. Article title is lending itself to be more and more problematic. A lot of points within the article require a ton of explaining rather than just vomiting out brain part jargon or plain statements like "it's diagnosed in men more than women" and vice-versa.

Topic[edit]

What might sound controversial about stating such differences, is assuming the outcome of such differences and the interactions of environmental stimuli. In all animals, but especially in our case, culture is a part of our biology, it just evolves faster socially (by archiving and propagating it through generations), and slower genetically as less of it is genetically transmitted. I think, I might be mistaken, that their heritable contribution is lesser, meaning that notions don't carry off genetically like phisical traits if not to the extent they physically shape the brain through life. So culture is part of our structure and we use it to survive and even to select, compared to other animals. It can't be assumed that a male can't train empathy and linguistic competence and a woman can't train the ability to do math because of such differences in brains, for example. If we go on full biology on gendered behaviours we would have to assume the female scientists have more "male shaped" brains in such areas and the reverse for males which are nurturing or such. And what if one is nurturing and a scientist? And I might be mistaken but lately, due to cultural evolutions and less gender policing we have more people which develop traits once deemed as gender specific :) --78.15.222.83 (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is about sex (biology), not "genders" (social construct).145.64.134.241 (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, we don't disagree, I was also talking about sexes. Though to be fair gender has in part a biological definition too, not tied on social gender roles, for example in the case of trangenderism and gender dysphoria, often (to my limited knowledge as Cis person), where a part of the brain refuses the body shape and senses it as foreign, not matching the sex of this zone of the brain, which if I got it right "maps" the body as one of the opposite sex than the one it is. So, in a way, gender seems to encompass an idea of brain sex, on top of evolving socio cultural roles. What this identification entails as behaviour and socially is a different thing, though such identification can lead in some cases to follow social norms attributed to the sex they identify with, hence gender, but that's part of a complex bio-social interaction (:. Thanks--78.15.249.18 (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Are brains really very different?[edit]

The article says that male and female brains are "very" different. I can't read the referenced source to see what it says (academic paywall), but I doubt if such a claim can be accepted without better evidence (the next ref is to a Psychology Today article by the author of Raising Boys by Design: What the Bible and Brain Science Reveal About What Your Son Needs to Thrive! Do we really cite Gregory L. Jantz uncritically?). Many of the differences are actually small and only visible in large samples, with significant overlap between male and female populations, and some studies such as Ingalhalikar's have been criticised for not specifying the size of the difference[1]. As you'll see from the studies, human brain structure is on average very similar between male and female, with both brains having the same basic components and structure, although there are outliers when it comes to measuring specific things. A lot of very small differences do not necessarily combine to prove a large difference, especially if the differences are all correlated or the studies often measuring similar things, and where there is so much overlap. So what is the evidence for saying "very"? --Gospatric (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I claim no special expertise on the subject but - from what I understand - the article seems to be overstating the case. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't help that the original author of this article was an uber-conservative with an axe to grind. There's been a lot more junk science added to this article since then too. The Baron-Cohen study, which has been proven to be controversial? No thanks. James Earl Cash (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Brain anatomy[edit]

I have strong objections to what is written in the end of the section "Brain anatomy".

"There is no research to be found on the effects of sex hormones on brain development, so no conclusions can be drawn regarding this."

This is absolutely false. For example, see: "Sex hormones have been implicated in neurite outgrowth, synaptogenesis, dendritic branching, myelination and other important mechanisms of neural plasticity." (https://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffnins.2015.00037), "This review explains the main effects exerted by sex steroids and other hormones on the adolescent brain. During the transition from puberty to adolescence, these hormones participate in the organizational phenomena that structurally shape some brain circuits." (https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00243639.2016.1211863), "As discussed in this Special Issue, developmentally programmed sex differences arise not only from secretion of sex hormones during sensitive periods in development but there also are contributions of genes on Y and X chromosomes, and in females there is inactivation of one or the other X chromosome in females (McCarthy & Arnold 2011)." (https://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fjnr.23809).

"recent research shows there is little difference in male and female brains of infants of 1 month age with the exception of overall brain volume (which can simply be explained by the fact that male infants grow larger on average, which ís a result of sex hormones). So (however more research should be done in order to be more certain of the following statement) from this it can be concluded that sex hormones have nothing to do with the development of the relative structure of the brain"

Sex hormones act on the brain for the whole life of a person, so the fact that 1 month age male and female brains are little different tells nothing on the influence of sex hormones on brain development. It would be like saying that since there is no difference in male and female breasts at 1 month, then sex hormones have nothing to do with breast development!

"and that most of the brain differences stated above are due to culture."

...it is clear to me that who wrote this sentence is supporting the trending ideology that male and female differences are only social constructs.

"Here it is assumed that the absence of effect of sex hormones on the brain anatomy remains the same after birth, but (although a research that assures this would be nice) this assumption is not a very bold one."

No, it is a completely false assumption, as shown by the research I quoted and many others.

Will RationalWiki fix such section accordingly to Science?

--Lankaster (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Personality traits[edit]

The article mentions differences in personality traits such as the Big Five, but it doesn't explain what these things represent neurologically, particularly as to whether they are considered innate or depend upon nurture and the environment. --Annanoon (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Annanoon Hi, I am the one who added the "Psychology" section and - yes, it is a bit a work in progress. In general, personality traits have been shown to have a biological component (see for example this study on twins reared apart). Regarding the sex differences in the distributions of personality traits, I added references to the studies which show that such differences are greater in more sex egalitarian societies. This support a biological component for such differences because, if they were due only to environment, then differences would be smaller in cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with men. --Lankaster (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Some changes[edit]

I checked the whole page and I made some changes in order to improve it.

"Additionally, the differences between the sexes can often be overstated as well as ignoring that the genders can often overlap, to say nothing of transgender people, whose brains often match the opposite gender rather than their designated sex at birth."

I moved this sentence out of the numbered list and I reformulated it citing some articles. This because, on the on hand, I think that transgenders are more something that complicate the study of cognitive differences between sexes than something that makes it controversial, on the other hand, saying that genders can often overlap is irrelevant to this page, where sexes (not genders) are considered, and intersexual conditions are quite rare (about 0.06% accordingly to the more generous statistics).

"There is no research to be found on the effects of sex hormones on brain development,..."

I removed this paragraph because it is completely false, as I already commented (see "Brain anatomy" on talk page).

"Although little is known about what types of input can promote spatial skill ... downplay the role of environmental effects."

I replaced this quote with a shorter sentence because it was too long (half a page of the original article!). If one is interested in more details then, at that point, it is better if he reads the article itself. — Unsigned, by: Lankaster / talk / contribs

Ahem. Most brain imaging of transgender people have shown that they are more similar to the opposite sex than the one they were born with. Additionally, saying that sex and gender aren't the same is pretty damn bigoted and unscientific. I don't know what intersex people have to do with this as they're not transgender, but a low recorded frequency of something doesn't amount to much. Anti-gay rights people have tried to use the low frequency of gay people as a reason to try and bar them their rights, but given the stigma against them, small wonder then that they're not shown on the radar as much. And when the sexes overlap? Then yes, I would say that undermines most of what you're saying here as to their differences. Even on the stuff when it came to women crying, a weird thing to note no doubt, there was only a difference of about three minutes. For crying out loud. James Earl Cash (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussing some edits[edit]

I saw @James Earl Cash made some edits. I'm gonna discuss them here, from the more to the less recent.

(cur | prev) 05:03, 20 September 2018‎ James Earl Cash (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,634 bytes) (-2,153)‎ . . (→‎Psychology: some of the studies found here looked flawed and written with an ideological axe to grind) (rollback 4 edits | undo)

You deleted an entire section without giving any evidence that the studies Sex differences in human neonatal social perception, Sex Differences in Infants’ Visual Interest in Toys, Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests are flawed. Since the burden of proof is on you, I rolled back such edits.

(cur | prev) 03:13, 18 September 2018‎ James Earl Cash (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,427 bytes) (-1,035)‎ . . (removed a paywalled source and an extremely sketchy sourced which used the bible as the source for it's research.) (undo)

I do not understand why you removed the paragraph which says that on average men have larger brain volume and brain weight. I see many sources are paywalled, so I do not think that is a sufficient reason (and even if it was, then add a source that it is not paywalled). I added it back.

Also, which extremely sketchy source use the bible as a source for its research? Please point out that. --Lankaster (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I take issue with any study that uses literal babies' paying attention to particular things as proof of anything. That's not getting into how Baron-Cohen and his peers who use the same methodology have received mixed reception within the scientific community. The Rong article on the other hand, has a definite agenda and especially as it relates to STEM and women's representation. I don't think it being science is enough qualification to make the grade, since there is a lot of junk science.
To be more specific, the Psychology Today article from Jantz is an excerpt on how he uses the Bible to study the psychology of boys. Sure, that's very sketchy.
On paywalled sources, I shouldn't have to be the one to add non-paywalled sources, that should be on you. I see you've done that, so okay. And sure, normally I wouldn't take issue with them, but on a topic as contentious as this, especially when there's a good deal of junk science out there, there shouldn't be any potentially misleading information. This isn't Wikipedia where they'll take a third person "objective" POV to the point that it becomes bloodless. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
You said some of the studies Sex differences in human neonatal social perception, Sex Differences in Infants’ Visual Interest in Toys, Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests looked flawed, and with this motivation you deleted the entire section "Interests". Those are scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals with high ranking (see Infant Behavior and Development, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Psychological Bulletin on ScimagoJR), so I do not think that you saying that "I take issue with any study that uses literal babies' paying attention to particular things as proof of anything." matters in any way. Since I see that you deleted again the section "Interests", I bring the problem to the attention of the moderators @Bongolian, @CheeseburgerFace, @CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario, @Spud.
My request to the moderators is that the section "Interest" will be restored, including all the above cited articles. I have no problems if criticisms of such articles are added, as long as they come from trusted scientific sources. --Lankaster (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"In adults, a 2009 meta-analysis found that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people. Precisely men show stronger realistic and investigative interests, and women showed stronger artistic, social, and conventional interests."

The last part contradicts with history. Art has been a strongly male-dominated field and if anything, men looooove drawing women. How does one reconcile contradicting history? Women being generally disadvantageous doesn't seem to be an adequate explanation for why women are more interested in art but there aren't much women historically. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much all professions are historically male-dominated. Are the arts are more male-biased than the average profession? Women have long been prominent in some of the arts, e.g. literature, applied arts/craft, performance, singing, acting, dance, some music-making. Do men love drawing women? Certainly men like looking at pictures of naked women, but that's not art appreciation. --Annanoon (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
OK. Here I am. I don't think this is really an issue that requires moderators' attention. Not yet anyway. If use of the Bible is an important part of the research in one of the references, that's definitely out. Maybe James Earl Cash could add a note about why research using babies paying attention to things is problematic. And absolutely make sure that all cited articles can be read in their entirety for free. Spud (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
"If use of the Bible is an important part of the research in one of the references, that's definitely out." That's not the case for the three articles Sex differences in human neonatal social perception, Sex Differences in Infants’ Visual Interest in Toys, Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests "And absolutely make sure that all cited articles can be read in their entirety for free." I'm not sure what do you mean. I have downloaded all those three articles because my institution has a subscription, but putting them online would be a violation of copyright (although, as far as I understand, I can share them with individuals, in case you were interested). Maybe there are free preprints that could be linked to the page, but now I'm not finding them. --Lankaster (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's absolutely necessary that articles be available free to everyone in order to be cited. The conclusions of an article are generally stated in the abstract. If it's a point of contention that is not clear from the abstract, you can always quote a passage from the article on the page to demonstrate your point. Bongolian (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Spud, @Bongolian I found some links to the articles and I added them to the page, restoring the section "Interests". I think that this was not necessary (and indeed I see that Bongolian agrees that articles can be cited even if not freely available), but I preferred doing so in order to avoid the discussion being stuck on this issue of paywall. --Lankaster (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, the issue related to the interests section wasn't really with them being paywalled or not being available although that can be difficult given that sometimes even Google Books and Google Scholar can't access the whole unavailable studies, no, my real complaint is related to them being sketchy. It can be peer reviewed and still be junk science. People need to stop looking to anything related to science as some divine monolith beyond questioning. As far as some notions that people have with the likes of Simon Baron-Cohen and other random studies that involve looking at babies?
https://www.recode.net/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-research-science-women-biology-tech-james-damore
https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boots-on-what-the-evidence-says-about-mr-damores-google-memo-bc93c8b2fdb9
http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0003-066X.60.9.950
http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2003/Extreme_Problems_with_Essential_Differences/
The first two of these are for a completely different issue, but there are criticisms of Baron-Cohen and the like in those articles from actual scientists. Even on Wikipedia, there is a thorough documentation of his many problems. I don't think he stands the test of scrutiny, nor do any studies that attempt to make claims about the psychology of gender based on babies. I also still think the Rong article doesn't hold water either. When it makes conclusions based on women's representation in STEM based on biology, then I think it has an ideological axe to grind and shouldn't be here. The gender issue can get ugly as is, making a bunch of conclusions based on who people innately are based on biology, when it can be muddy enough as is given that there are a lot of non-binary and transgender people who deliberately avoid popping up on the radar to avoid retaliation, seems bound to lead to catastrophe.
Additionally, I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. You're siccing the mods on me because of a disagreement we're having on the talk page? This was before you justified your inclusion of the interests section because it's been peer-reviewed and all that, mind you. Nevermind that I take serious issue that you're mandating that your sources must be included or else you'll report anyone who disagrees with you. To wit, I also find the interests section problematic in and of itself, and I think that adding any sources critical of this section will in effect nullify the purpose of said section to begin with. It'd have to be re-titled to be contemptuous of the concept of innate biological interest to begin with.
I gotta ask right now, Lankaster, are you McLaghing? I don't hang around the RW forums that much, but you're one of the few people I've seen ping blitz all the mods whenever things don't go your way, just like he did, and you seem ardently devoted to this page, which he created. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
"but there are criticisms of Baron-Cohen and the like in those articles from actual scientists." Then you can add them to the section "Interests". As I have already said, I have no problems with somebody adding criticisms to such articles, as long as they come from scientific sources. My problem is with an user deleting a section because he thinks "these studies ... doesn't hold water", and that we all should trust him.
Moreover, if these studies are really "sketchy" (or even "junk science"), and have got a lot of criticisms from experts, then this would be even more a reason to cite them on RW, with all criticisms, since RW is indeed devoted to criticize pseudo-science.
"are you McLaghing?" No, I'm not. --Lankaster (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@James Earl Cash Good, I see you added a paragraph with some criticisms regarding the studies on babies. That's much better than deleting the entire section 👍 Before digging into it, I have some comments/questions:

1) "For example, in an experiment where caretakers raised a child whose sex was unknown to them, when they were told it was a girl, they encouraged play with dolls and spoke gently, while when told the child was a boy, the caretakers were less verbal and encouraged play with trucks." That's an interesting experiment, can you add a direct reference to the scientific paper?

2) "In addition, parents often raise their children in stereotypical ways relative to their gender." same thing, a reference to a scientific paper backing up this claim is needed.

3) " As well, let's accept the explanation for once that there are genetic differences in babies relative to people vs things. The elephant in the room becomes apparent when you consider these were one day old infants." I don't get it. The point of studying such young babies is to ensure that they have not being conditioned by cultural factors (like playing with dolls/trucks as in the study you mentioned). Hence, using young babies is not a fault, it's a strength. Also, in the first study there were one day infants, but the second study deals with 5 months infants.

4) "The final nail in the coffin is that it becomes a wide leap to say that, all criticisms notwithstanding and assuming the science is sound, that it is quite a leap to say that boys are necessarily more things oriented or girls are more people oriented." Besides the fact that the sentence is confusing (it repeats "leap" two times), who is saying that boys are necessarily more things oriented or girls? All these experiments are about average behaviours.

5) "It could just as well be proposed that the infants in question had longer time to habituate themselves when it comes to perceiving people and things they didn't understand" So the claim would be that on average females, resp. males, take longer time to habituate with things, resp. people. That doesn't sound different to say that females, resp. males, are more people, resp. things, oriented. --Lankaster (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

1. I'm pretty sure I already did this.
2. Same.
3. If the babies are only one day old, then yeah, it's weird to extrapolate ANY kind of personality differences based on that. Even if it were true somehow that there was an innateness to males and females based on that alone, I would say it's a very weak conclusion to make given that it relies on only using one day old babies. Likewise, I think the studies I added also bring up a lot of issues with socialization even in say, five month old infants. That would leave a lot at doubt for that experiment.
4. Writing redundancy aside, when it's claimed that men and women are more average on anything, while it's not saying that they're necessarily anything, it is making a pretty big blanket claim about their personality, and that in turn can be twisted and warped to suit an agenda. Saying that men and women are anything to begin with is in itself a pretty big claim and opens up it's own can of worms. If any doubt at all can be cast on such a notion, let alone the methodology, then it needs to be said, and the claim that men and women are an average anything is in itself thrown into doubt.
5. Ties into what I said before. This seems like you're trying to escape the doubts and faults of the methodology of the scientific studies quoted earlier. If someone is trying to habituate themselves to something, then that would deny the notion that they are necessarily more oriented to a certain thing. Most people pay more attention to opposing party politics out of spite, obviously that doesn't mean they're more into them or whatever. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1 You only added a reference to this scientific magazine which mentioned a study of A. Will, P. A. Self, and N. Datan. I think it's always better to add the reference to the original scientific paper. I think I found it, and I have already added it to the page. Please check if it is correct.
2 Please add the reference to the scientific paper just after the sentence, I'm not finding it.
3 "If the babies are only one day old, then yeah, it's weird to extrapolate ANY kind of personality differences based on that" How old they should be to both extrapolate information about their personality AND be sure that they have not be conditioned by the culture of their enviroment?
4 "it is making a pretty big blanket claim about their personality, and that in turn can be twisted and warped to suit an agenda." That's an argumentation by consequencesWikipedia's W.svg, hence it is fallacious. --Lankaster (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
1. I'm not really opposed to this, but at the same time, it doesn't matter to me either? Dana is a pretty reputable organization, I trust they are willing to work with science in a consistent and respectful manner.
2. I'm paraphrasing directly from the Dana site. Their interpretation is pretty valid given they're a scientific organization.
3. I'm skeptical of any study using babies to make grand claims about biology and gender period. For that matter, the interpretation offered by Baron-Cohen seems problematic and riddled with an agenda to make. Like I've said earlier, the man himself has a mixed reception within the scientific community. Just do a simple search on Wikipedia.
4. Sure, but if the science is bad too, then something's wrong. People often try and complain about Darwin's "influence" on Hitler to discredit evolution, but that says nothing about evolution in and of itself. When you combine faulty science AND something to push though? It starts to sound as reputable as phrenology or healing crystals. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is trash now.[edit]

Look, at the shit that User:Lankster has added.

On average, men have larger brain volume and brain weight com­pared to women, which is only partly accounted for by larger body dimensions in men

That second half is not even remotely supported by the fucking citations he's given. No, seriously. Go look at citation 8 and 9, dig through their contents. Citation 9 even says the fucking opposite in the abstract(and discusses it more broadly nowhere else). That bolded second half isn't even remotely addressed by either author. This is just misogynist assumptions reproduced in a rationalwiki article for no goddamn reason. In general this article is bait for these kinds of morons, and we should be rolling back more of these kinds of bullshit-laden edits. It's gonna take forever to dig through everything Lankster has added, and check whether the rest of it even slightly stands up to scrutiny but given the overall tone of his choices of things to include, I'm gonna guess probably not. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Follow up, the second of his citations I looked at also says the literal goddamn opposite of what he claims in our article. What the fuck. How the fuck is "sex differences in empathy from birth, and such differences appear to be consistent and stable across the lifespan" even remotely supported by citation 65 that says "Behavioral research indicates that human females are more empathic than males, a disparity that widens from childhood to adulthood". Isn't that literally the opposite of consistant and stable accross lifespan? And just look at figure 1. The fucking trend lines for men and women empathy fucking cross with age. FUCKING FLIP which gender is "more empathic".
My inclination after reviewing just two citations added by Lankster, is to revert everything and make him actually demonstrate each fucking claim he drops in. Because this really kills my trust in his ability to not lie his ass off about paper contents. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I guess removing the bullshit changes citation numbers. Everything I say above is with respect to this revision ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed First, be cool.

Regarding the sentence "On average, men have larger brain volume and brain weight com­pared to women, which is only partly accounted for by larger body dimensions in men", I think that it is supported by the cited article. Indeed, for the first part, Table 1 shows that the average male brain volume is 1233.58 cm3 while the average female brain volume is 1115.76 cm3, for the second part, in the article it is written: "We also ran analyses adjusting for height, since overall body size may have influenced these differences (as expected, males were substantially taller on average: d = −2.15). This attenuated all of the d-values (average attenuation across global and subcortical measures = 71.3%), but males still showed significantly larger volumes for all subcortical regions except the nucleus accumbens"

Regarding the sentence "sex differences in empathy from birth, and such differences appear to be consistent and stable across the lifespan" this is supported by the cited 2014 meta-analysis. Indeed, it is almost the same as the following sentence from the article: "From this body of developmental work, it is clear that there are sex differences in empathy from birth, and sex differences appear to be consistent and stable across the lifespan (e.g., Michalska et al., 2013; O’Brien et al., 2013), with females demonstrating higher levels of empathy than males..." and also the other cited articles are the same. I don't know why Christov-Moore et al use the term "stable" but they then cite Michalska et al which actually say that "females are more empathic than males, a disparity that widens from childhood to adulthood." Anyway, as you can see, I'm not making things up, I'm citing exactly the 2014 meta-analysis.

I changed the section making explicit that the difference widens with age. --Lankaster (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Look at the fucking data. Look at figure fucking 1. Their early weeks data shows nothing like what you're saying. You know that. I don't know what you have up your ass about trying to force every single sex difference you can come up with whether it's supported, by someone defying all psychological tradition of using brain-to-bodymass ratio in favor of brain-to-height ratio to support a spurious claim, or outright stating the opposite of what the raw data shows, but you should stop. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"shit", "fucking", "morons", "bullshit-laden", "ass" I ask you politely to use a less aggressively language.
"Look at the fucking data. Look at figure fucking 1. Their early weeks data shows nothing like what you're saying." First, I'm not saying anything, I quoted almost literally the sentence from the 2014 meta-analysis. So, if anything, yours is an objection to the Christov-Moore et al, not to me. Second, those data are about "empathic sadness", not about "empathy". Third, I added the claim that accordingly to Michalska et al "females are more empathic than males, a disparity that widens from childhood to adulthood", so I don't know what else are you contesting. --Lankaster (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"Bullshit laden" in particular feels appropriate when you're contending the opposite of the author's own summation of research thus-far. I apologize if you find coarse language unpleasant, and I'll try to respect your dislike of it, but I don't want to equivocate: bullshit is a particular kind of dishonesty that seems to be on display here and has no adequate polite synonym.
Back to on topic: the fact that you're so dead set on trying to write a misleading version of the article that emphasizes an unproven biological determinism is really awful, especially as we have sources contradicting your original summary version and what you've done is walk back the most egregious misinformation while maintaining what appears to your original hypothesis of incontrovertable biological determinism.
It ain't good.
Into the weeds of your particular new reply: yes, figure one is indeed empathetic sadness, but if you take even ten seconds to understand the study beyond quote mining it, you'd see that's one of the primary variables they use as a representative value of the broader measure of empathy. It literally is empathy just only a single measure. None of their other data, per published supplementary information, measure anything else about empathy at all, it's all neuroimaging data. You need to take a moment and analyze what the authors actually said, not just willful readings of single sentences. It's really not great. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"you're contending the opposite of the author's own summation of research thus-far." Read again: Regarding the sentence "On average, men have larger brain volume and brain weight com­pared to women, which is only partly accounted for by larger body dimensions in men", I think that it is supported by the cited article. Indeed, for the first part, Table 1 shows that the average male brain volume is 1233.58 cm3 while the average female brain volume is 1115.76 cm3, for the second part, in the article it is written: "We also ran analyses adjusting for height, since overall body size may have influenced these differences (as expected, males were substantially taller on average: d = −2.15). This attenuated all of the d-values (average attenuation across global and subcortical measures = 71.3%), but males still showed significantly larger volumes for all subcortical regions except the nucleus accumbens"
Regarding the sentence "sex differences in empathy from birth, and such differences appear to be consistent and stable across the lifespan" this is supported by the cited 2014 meta-analysis. Indeed, it is almost the same as the following sentence from the article: "From this body of developmental work, it is clear that there are sex differences in empathy from birth, and sex differences appear to be consistent and stable across the lifespan (e.g., Michalska et al., 2013; O’Brien et al., 2013), with females demonstrating higher levels of empathy than males..." and also the other cited articles are the same. I don't know why Christov-Moore et al use the term "stable" but they then cite Michalska et al which actually say that "females are more empathic than males, a disparity that widens from childhood to adulthood." Anyway, as you can see, I'm not making things up, I'm citing exactly the 2014 meta-analysis. I changed the section making explicit that the difference widens with age. --Lankaster (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
No matter how much you repeat that. You're still radically over-extrapolating by personal whim. You're trying to contend an innateness to that, but that's contradicted by data that shows disparity increase with socialization. See: "This developmental stability suggests that sex differences are unlikely to be caused exclusively by postnatal experiences (e.g., maternal care)" You aren't changing what you're saying to suit the evidence, you're just injecting watered down wording to justify it. I'd be much more happy to argue these semantics if the semantics reflected what you ended up changing our article to imply. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"You aren't changing what you're saying to suit the evidence, you're just injecting watered down wording to justify it." I really have no idea what do you mean. The sentence "This developmental stability suggests that sex differences are unlikely to be caused exclusively by postnatal experiences (e.g., maternal care)" is taken word by word from the 2014 meta-analysis, I'm not injecting anything.
I have put back the 2014 meta-analysis on the page, but now the first paragraph is an exact quote of the article (with all references). --Lankaster (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

My inclination after reviewing just two citations added by Lankster, is to revert everything and make him actually demonstrate each fucking claim he drops in. Because this really kills my trust in his ability to not lie his ass off about paper contents.

Oh look, it's Ikanreed being an asshole again. What a surprise! As for the content in question, if it's not supported by a citation, remove it. Pinging the other mods on whether we should revert the article to an older revision or sift through every edit. @DiamondDisc1@LeftyGreenMario@Spud@CowHouse@BongolianHamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 11:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not think it's necessary to revert to an earlier version of the page. Yes, remove anything not supported by references. Might I suggests that @Lankaster discusses possible future edits here first before making them. Spud (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh fuck off, cheeseburgerface; you've been doing a terrible job modding. That's exactly what I did, remove just the offending content. I've left others lankster put in. Good job modding on your assumptions about what happened without reviewing edit logs at all. By all means, please endorse not-at-all-supported-by-mainstream-psychology "women have tiny brains" edits. Heaven help you if anyone ever actually check citations for seriously dubious claims, and find them seriously misrepresented. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Spud "Yes, remove anything not supported by references." I want to point out that I showed in my first reply in this thread that all the claims were supported by the references, actually one was almost a quote from the article. Maybe you didn't have read yet, if so, please, I ask you to read it, just to make clear that despite the ikanreed's accusations I did nothing dishonest. I also want to point out that ikanreed made objections to the sections "Brain anatomy" and "Emotions" but, as you can see from the record (14:50, 26 September 2018), he also completely deleted the section "Interests", without making any argumentation about it. "Might I suggests that Lankaster discusses possible future edits here first before making them." Surely I'm not gonna delete entire sections without discussing it before. Regarding editing what has been written by others, as you can see I'm already having a conversation with James Erl Cash. I like working on this page so probably I'll add some new material. In such a case, every other user can check it, and I don't see why I should wait to have an approval here, like a kind of untrusted user, since I'm clear of all ikanreed's accusations. --Lankaster (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Errr no, your claims are not supported by references. You haven't done a good job defending ikanreed's specific points of contention within the references that outright dispute or contradict the claims you're making. But again, I agree that ikanreed's callousness is counter-productive to this page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
"Errr no, your claims are not supported by references. You haven't done a good job defending ikanreed's specific points of contention" If you think so then tell me what is wrong in my reply of 15:36, 26 September 2018. I find amazing that such reply continues to be ignored by everybody. --Lankaster (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what leads you to believe that we haven't read what you've said. The metaanalysis you cite, in turn references the paper that seems to very much not support that contention at all. That paper cites mishka, mishka finds rapidly changing empathy. Moreover, the very next paragraph in that very same metaanalysis cites a full 7 papers asserting the dominance of socialization in empathy development, which he just handwaves away saying "it could be genetic anyways". And worse? You intentionally represent stability in individuals to our readers as consistency within genders, when if you read a paragraph further: "Sex differences appear to grow larger with age, especially around puberty, perhaps driven by greater age-related improvements in empathy in females relative to males" You're over-inflating the author's already stretched interpretation. I don't like it, and I don't like the way you dodge the actual concerns to say "but I'm (selectively and not honestly) quoting the paper directly". Read this study that cites that meta-anlaysis about all the problems that exist in the fields and assumptions that go into it. I wanted to not get into "my paper versus yours" territory, because those are unwinnable arguments and you're genuinely and seemingly purposefully misrepresenting your current sources. The killer line from my counter-point paper, right at the head of the discussion section "These results indicate that sex differences in empathy are not ubiquitous; rather, they emerge mainly under specific conditions."
It's not good science. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Just for clarification's sakes, Lankaster, if the brain volume section is restored, I'm going to insist that it says men's brains are macroscopically larger as opposed to being larger on average. One admits that men's brains are only superficially larger while admitting of problems with such a rendering later on when it admits that the various ways women's brains various areas are larger than men's dashes any rendering that men's brains are larger than average. Saying that men's brains are larger than average can deffo be read as sexist and is rather problematic in and of itself. If the section is restored and this elaboration is added, when all this settles down, it should hopefully bring some peace to the fracas. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, stop with the "adjusting for height" shit[edit]

It's not good science, I didn't want to drag the author of lankster's paper through the mud since they're mostly respectable, but they're a bioessentiallist constantly at odds with the mainstream of the psychological world, and it's been crazy well established that brain-body-mass is the conventional best measure of relative mental capacity in mammals, Brainmass-height ratio is a completely spurious relationship that was included in lankster's paper with no theoretical or empirical grounding to support it. There's complexities to the measure like it doesn't really correspond accross families, only within them, but can we stick to established science. Please?

Again, it's a completely irrelevant measure, what the fuck are we doing citing it?

Cut it yesterday, I'm not gonna edit the article again, because cheeseburgerface and all, but seriously, someone cut the garbage out. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't know why Lankaster took out the part about men's brains being larger on a macroscopic scale as opposed to their version that says men's brains are larger on average. Macroscopically means in relation to the naked eye, not that they're larger objectively in terms of the actual microscopic dimensions or sum total of areas. I added more from the articles they quoted in an attempt to try and quell this brouhaha, as later on in the study, it admits that women's brains have more volume in other areas that men are lacking in, which throws the idea that men's brains are larger on average out the window. I don't know much about the actual scientists themselves, but you were right that there was a lot of data missing when Lankaster originally quoted the papers. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Brain volume and weight[edit]

@Bongolian, @CheeseburgerFace, @CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario, @Spud.

Ikanreed keeps deleting the section of "Brain anatomy" regarding brain volume and weight, which content I have copied below:

*On average, men have larger brain volume and brain weight com­pared to women.<ref name="Ritchie2018">{{Cite journal|title=Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants|vol=28|issue=8|year=2018|journal=Cerebral Cortex|pages=2959–2975|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy109}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|title=Normal weight of the brain in adults in relation to age, sex, body height and weight|journal=Der Pathologe|year=1994|volume=15|issue=3|pages=165-70|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8072950|last1=Hartmann|last2=Ramseier|last3=Gudat|last4=Mihatsch|last5=Polasek}}</ref> This is only partly accounted for by larger body dimensions in men, since even after adjusting for height "males still showed significantly larger volumes for all subcortical regions except the nucleus accumbens".<ref name="Ritchie2018"/> The planum temporale and Sylvian fissure were found to be larger and longer on average in men than in women. In contrast, the volumes of the superior temporal cortex, Broca's area, the hippocampus, and caudate (expressed as a proportion of total brain volume) were significantly larger in women. 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, to the point that they were sometimes found to be absent in men.<ref name="Elsevier2010">{{Cite book|title=Sex difference in the human brain, their underpinnings and implications|vol=186|year=2010|publisher=Elsevier|url=https://www.elsevier.com/books/sex-differences-in-the-human-brain-their-underpinnings-and-implications/savic-berglund/978-0-444-53630-3}}</ref><ref name="Ritchie2018"/> In a study ranging from participants aged from 44-77 years, men apparently have on average higher raw volume and raw surface areas than women, but at the same time, there was a considerable overlap between the sexes. As well, subregional differences were not at all attributed to brain size. Males also had a larger variance across raw structural measures.<ref name="Ritchie2018"/>

As far as I understand, and @Ikanreed correct me if I'm wrong, he keeps deleting because he thinks that it shouldn't be said that men have larger brain volume than women after adjusting for height, because he think that's irrelevant.

My objections are:

1) The section contains many information other than the volume-height issue, I don't see any reason why also such information should be deleted.

2) That on average men have larger brain even after adjusting for height is supported by the study of Ritchie et al. so it's correct and should not be deleted.

3) If adjusting for height is somehow bad then, instead of deleting such information, it should be explained why it's bad and what other adjustments are better, if any.

4) It seems to me that most of Ikanreed's steam comes from interpreting such section "sexist garbage". I don't see how that could be since no claim about men being better of women is done. Also, Ikanreed finds data about brain size sexists, but apparently he has no problem about the section saying "Women have significantly better connected neural networks", which shows something must be faulty in his reasoning...

--Lankaster (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

This paper claims, that there is a correlation between height and IQ, and furthermore, after adjusting for height, women have slightly higher IQs than men. Does that make everyone happy?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Please, let's not use a paper from Satoshi Kanazawa of all people. James Earl Cash (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Brain volume is a red herring: we don't need additional mentions of it in the article. If @Ikanreed has problems with any particular claims, then @Lankaster should be able to provide a quote from the relevant article as evidence. Bongolian (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Bongolian is absolutely right. Don't add a lot of stuff about something that isn't really relevant. Spud (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The use of height in this page is also irrelevant and should not be included on this page. At best it's irrelevant and explainable by good nutrition causing both increased height and intelligence. At worst, it's bad science (using poor statistical methodology). See the criticism of height-intelligence correlation on the WP page: Height and intelligence.Wikipedia's W.svg Bongolian (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian@Spud "Brain volume is a red herring: we don't need additional mentions of it in the article." "Don't add a lot of stuff about something that isn't really relevant." How in a section "Brain anatomy" information about brain volume and weight are irrelevant?

@Bongolian"If Ikanreed has problems with any particular claims, then Lankaster should be able to provide a quote from the relevant article as evidence." Have you read the section Ikanreed continue to delete? References are provided. "At best it's irrelevant and explainable by good nutrition causing both increased height and intelligence. At worst, it's bad science" Have you read my objection (3)? If it's bad science then that's a reason to include it, explaining why it's bad and maybe adding better kind of adjustment.

@Ariel31459 If you are willing to partecipate in the discussion, could you please comment against or in favor of my position? Instead of adding further points of disagreement in an already difficult discussion.

@James Earl Cash "Macroscopically means in relation to the naked eye, not that they're larger objectively in terms of the actual microscopic dimensions or sum total of areas. I added more from the articles they quoted in an attempt to try and quell this brouhaha, as later on in the study, it admits that women's brains have more volume in other areas that men are lacking in, which throws the idea that men's brains are larger on average out the window. I don't know much about the actual scientists themselves, but you were right that there was a lot of data missing when Lankaster originally quoted the papers." I'm in perfectly fine if you want to add the term "macroscopic". I removed it because I thought it was redundant (I mean "volume" as "total volume", in turn as "volume at macroscopic level"). I'm also fine with the other information you added about more specific size of women and men brains. Indeed I'm fine with providing more information as possible. --Lankaster (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lankaster The point is that the "Brain anatomy" section is not that relevant to the topic of the article and therefore should not be very long. Spud (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
But how can lankster backhandedly push the idea that women are inferior backhandedly if he can't include spurious interpretations of data in the article? This is very unfair of you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Spud It seems to me that you all keep changing the charges... First the "adjustment for larger bodies" isn't supported by references - then, after I quoted the exact reference, the adjustment is "bad science" - then, after I say that agree in adding any criticism to such adjustment and any information about better type adjustments, it's sexist or irrelevant - now, it turn out that the entire "Brain anatomy" section is irrelevant and so the whole point is just keeping it short... Come on, that's running in circles.
@Ikanreed "But how can lankster backhandedly push the idea that women are inferior backhandedly" I'm getting tired of being called a sexist. I never claimed that women are inferior to men, and if you think that claiming differences in brain sizes means claiming "superiority" of men, then you are completely ignorant of brain science. To the point that - according to you - elephants (with an average brain of 11 kg) are superior to humans...
Also, this "sexist" me, added to the page information like: " Schizophrenia is about 1.4 times more prevalent in men than women." and "the personalty trait of Machiavellianism, characterized by a duplicitous interpersonal style, a cynical disregard for morality, and a focus on self-interest and personal gain, is higher in males than females.", so am I also claiming that men are superior, crazy, and evil? And why I have no problem with the information about women having better connected neural networks, having better understanding of facial expressions... if I am so misogynist? --Lankaster (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Fuck off. You asked for politeness, and I granted it up until you were purposefully dishonest to me. Emphasizing size differences in ways that ignore mainstream psychological research and its analyses about the subject is sexist, and you know damn well what you're doing. You know full well the Brain-Body-mass ratio used by actual neuropsychology places the mean-trend deviation of elephants as substantially less than humans. Or you've not even read up on a goddamn bit of it, and are purposefully ignoring it in your quest for pseudoscience, either way, fuck off. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed "Fuck off." Here we go again... you can say to me "fuck off" all day (and apparently mods are fine with that...), and that shows only how weak you argumentation skills are... "You know full well the Brain-Body-mass ratio used by actual neuropsychology places the mean-trend deviation of elephants as substantially less than humans." But it places ants and small birds above humans... so now are you claiming that ants and small birds are "superior" than humans? The truth is that (I) There is no way to tell the intelligence just by rough measurements like weight, volume, sizes... even taking account of body size, mass... (II) Hence, claim about brain measures are not claims about intelligence. (III) Anyway, claim about intelligence are not claim about superiority.
Finally, if you think that brain-body-mass ratio is a better measurement, why don't you add it to the page, explaining why it's better, instead of deleting everything? I said from the beginning that I'm fine with adding any other information about other adjustments. --Lankaster (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Because, spoiler, that measure doesn't actually reflect any difference. Which is, you know, about what you'd expect. You're adding pseudo-science, which I'd much rather stop than add a million and a half null hypotheses. Adding "there's no difference in overall academic performance" and "both men and women have similar visual processing ability" or "men and women have the same regions of the brain", there's literally millions of ways to state "yeah no real differences here". And if the mods need to ban me because you're being a fuckface, so be it. If you're actively lying to my face, I'm treating you like the shit you're being. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
"you're being a fuckface, so be it. If you're actively lying to my face, I'm treating you like the shit you're being." @Bongolian, @CheeseburgerFace, @CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario, @Spud --Lankaster (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
You are being a fuckface, you know this, right? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The tone can be translated to this: make better arguments; acknowledge your misinterpretation of those references you cited and find better ones; acknowledge that mainstream psychology views find the brain-size thing irrelevant and actual sexists (which you deny being one) keep pushing for it and also cite or misrepresent studies. People had to sit through liars like Sayer Ji who perform a similar tactic (citing sources that do not support claims or even refute them) and you are doing the same except it's not as as egregious as Sayer Ji. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario "The tone can be translated to this: make better arguments;" Are you a moderator? It's the second time ikanreed is calling me "fuckface" and apparently you are perfectly OK with this. I'm not saying that if ikanreed insults me then I'm right. I'm saying that it's shameful that moderators let an user keeping insulting another. You are doing an extremely bad job.
Regarding making better arguments, I have listed four objections and the beginning of this thread and nobody has given yet a precise answer to any them, so... Instead, you all keep changing the "charges", to the point that now the entire section "Brain anatomy" is questioned, and even the title of the page... --Lankaster (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
"Nobody"? All your points are easily refuted by "brain weight is not relevant to the article", and Bongolian explains has agreed several times. James Earl Cash also elaborates as in "the information is misleading and requires thorough explanation beyond sweeping generalizations on brain weight, overlooking the makeup of the particular regions of the brain". I'm not going to enforce tone moderation when you keep pushing the same arguments. Genuine question, do you not understand why the information is irrelevant? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario After all your logical argumentations, now I perfectly understand why the information is irrelevant. Similarly, the information that women have better connected neural networks is irrelevant. Indeed, the entire section "Brain anatomy" is irrelevant and sexist, and must be deleted. I don't understand why you disagree and reverted my deletion. Also, other part of the page must be deleted, because they could be used to stated that one sex is superior to the other. --Lankaster (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
If you claim you understand it, why do you insist pushing on it? You haven't convinced me you understood anything nor have you convinced ikanreed you're being honest when it comes to someone disputing the specifics of your citations. When ikanreed points out that Figure X doesn't say what you say, you don't respond to that at all and reiterate "my sources are supported". When other editors agree that the brain weight thing is problematic, why do you claim that no one has read your comments? Why do you, in a passive-aggressive manner, willfully extrapolate our arguments to try to apply other sections in the article? What is the point of you trying to clip off sections like an person with serious anger issues when you can't have people agreeing with you and post, dripping with thinly veiled seething frustration, juvenile misrepresentations of the general real contention of problematic brain size psychology? Why are you intentionally damaging the article with your edits if it's clear you're not getting things your way? Yes, I take issue with ikanreed's language sometimes but his arguments matter much more to me, and he has presented a stronger case. I don't see how it's productive to ban him when he has done more than you to ensure our article is accurate and doesn't misrepresent our sources. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
"Similarly, the information that women have better connected neural networks is irrelevant." Look, I'm not sure what that means either, really, but I know that when you're measuring cognitive ability, how the brain is wired matters more than mere weight. The remainder of... whatever that sarcastic ranting was..., well I don't think you are able to draw a distinction here. Weight isn't a useful or reliable indicator of how the brain can work (I argue compared to the other differences spelled out here, but even then, there's a nature vs nurture debate and overall impact of pure biology -> behavior), so that's why we shouldn't go into detail on that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lankaster Since you have asked me to choose a position I have to say it has not been persuasively argued that brain morphology ought to be discussed at length. Who is prepared to interpret what real differences in morphology might entail? The article is supposed to be about cognitive differences, and not anatomical variation. This subject is related to behavioral differences. Changing the subject perhaps evidencein primate studies would be an interesting addition. In any event this article, were it to be non-ideological, should not imply cognitive superiority of one sex over another by too much reference to bigger brains.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Ariel31459. Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ariel31459@Bongolian "In any event this article, were it to be non-ideological, should not imply cognitive superiority of one sex over another by too much reference to bigger brains." How much is too much? Is the sentence "On average, men have larger brain volume and brain weight com­pared to women.(ref)" too much? If the answer is YES, then you are just saying that "brain volume should not be mentioned at all because implies cognitive superiority of one sex". If the answer is NO, then you should agree in adding just that sentence to the bullet list of the section "Brain anatomy". --Lankaster (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Lankaster pushes really hard for brain size differences to be added despite the arguments for removing it for having problematic implications and also being irrelevant. Call me ideological, whatever, but Lankaster has failed to provide strong rebuttals to ikanreed's arguments beyond either calling off ikanreed's tone or simply pushing for it to be added in because it's a statement supported by a reference (and not quite) and it's tangentially related to the subject. My decision is to remove the information unless Lankaster can demonstrate that brain size differences influence behavior. Also, the negative traits associated with men that Lankaster brings up such as higher propensity for schizophrenia and machiavellianism are, well, actual personality differences among populations. Not the best analogy. The latter, machiavellianism, is likely influenced by socialization. Anyhow, that's cherry-picking because the results don't consistently show women as having a higher prevalence of a more desired trait either. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You know, you're right. The thing about machiavellianism(and other dark triad) is, I didn't really want to fight the battle of "Yes, that's an observable empirical phenomena and you're not unnecessarily hinting a bioessentialist source of it that the literature hasn't backed, but I still think we'd kind of accidentally make that implication by virtue of the article title". Not misleading people into thinking phenomenology is equivalent to mechanism is hard. Maybe the article title sucks for that?
Schizophenia is tougher though. Because, like many other psychotic disorders, there's a direct, if incomplete, neurological understanding of what drives it, so varying levels incidence could be fairly interpreted through a lens of biology without being overinterpretive. The source doesn't really seem to undercut the claim either. Getting one thing right doesn't make me any less pissed about the other shit, it turns out. I'm pretty much instantly angry-as-hell when pseudoscience is used to promote bigotry. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue that article title doesn't technically imply essentialism one way or the other. In fact, it seems to imply some degree of superficiality, as in simple observations, particularly in machiavellianism; mere disparity of prevalence in personality disorders between sexes (when environment and economic conditions and other necessary factors are controlled) is technically a cognitive difference between sexes. Anticipating "but differences in brain size", well, I'm not convinced that brain size affects cognition, as it doesn't seem relevant compared to personality disorders which are a product of cognition and are relevant if not necessary to discuss in the article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the first chapter of the Savic book again, and they DO say that men's macroscopically larger brains are partly accounted for by body dimensions. At the same time, there is no outright mention of mental abilities or anything and they are the same ones I quoted from later on how a lot of areas in women's brains tend to be larger in certain areas or on a microscopic scale which would dash any misogynist interpretation of anything. So at the risk of starting everything up again, maybe that bit about only being partly accounted for by body dimensions could be re-inserted with another reference to the paper ikanreed mentioned above? There could be some attempt at scientific reconciliation there, but after everything that just happened here, I want other peoples' input and hopefully, some consensus first. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
On one hand, I appreciate that information. On the other hand, that this doesn't seem to relate to mental abilities gives me a bit of a pause and uncertainty of adding that because I'm not sure if the whole thing is even relevant in the grand scheme of things. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with things being "only partly" accounted for. We're fallible beings, there's no shame in not knowing the cause of everything. That it's partly accounted for is already a positive. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
"Partly accounted for", then, requires specifics. Can't there be multiple ways it is "accounted for"? Is this a little weasely? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"Men have a higher percentage of white matter whereas women have a higher percentage of gray matter"

I think this statement needs to be explained a bit better. Try translating that to how this affects cognitive differences, even if the experts end up only speculating. Right now, it's a plain statement that doesn't add much to the article. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this article should be renamed and cover the whole scale of biological differences between the sexes as opposed to cognitive differences. McLaghing turned out to not have the interests of the truth at heart as opposed to ideology and I suspect that's just as true when this article was written, but that might be one way all the various current problems on display, including ones that will probably be unearthed as time goes on, can be solved while this creation can be salvaged. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash "Maybe this article should be renamed and cover the whole scale of biological differences between the sexes" What!? Are you trying to write an article collecting sexists claims like differences between men and women strength? Moreover, don't you know that sex is a spectrum and so even the men-women distinction is bigoted and unscientific? --Lankaster (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure, and all that and more can be added to the article. This thing can very well be used to highlight just how similar and dissimilar people are in spite of their gender, and how social class due to discrimination via racism can impact what is thought of as normal. Like how Mario said down below, anorexia is apparently not very prevalent in black women. That's one example. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
And women are slowly catching up to men when it comes to running times and all. I think some training can equalize the inherent differences or at least other advantages can make up for it. Or just use technology. :) --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Transgender reference[edit]

The last reference in the opening says this:

Adolescent and adult natal males with early onset of GD [gender dysphoria] are almost always androphilic, while most with a late onset are gynephilic.

The present review focuses on the brain structure of male-to-female (MtF) and female-to-male (FtM) homosexual transsexuals before and after cross-sex hormone treatment as shown by in vivo neuroimaging techniques.

Should we really use a reference that says "traps are gay"?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 10:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace In none of the parts of the reference you quoted I see the claim that transexuals are homosexuals. The first quote says that natal males with early onset of gender dysphoria are almost always androphilic (they like masculinity), while those with late onset are most gynephilic (they like feminility). The second part says that they studied "homosexual transsexuals", that is, "transsexuals which are also homosexuals". --Lankaster (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
No, you're misreading that, or misunderstanding the modern nomenclature. They explicitly call transwomen who have sex with men "homosexual" which is quite outdated. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
(EC)It's not great(though "traps are gay" is 100% your phrasing), but the paper does address that concern directly, without actually, you know, actually choosing to use modern language. "However, Gooren had reservations about the use of the terms “homo”- and “nonhomosexual” because MtFs do not view themselves as homosexuals, considering themselves women in their sexual interaction with men. " So they note that calling transwomen who are attracted to men "homosexual" is frowned upon, but do it anyways. Maybe that's worse? Esepcially since they citation for good language is 2006, when that might have been controversial, and the paper is from 2016, when it's not. Either way, it was a poor choice on the author's part. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It's always bothered me how there's no common word for saying "attracted to dudes" and "attracted to women" without comparing it to whatever sex/gender people have. When it comes to sexual orientation, I've got as little in common with gay men as I do with straight women. The homo-hetero dichotomy gets even more ridiculous with non-binary becoming normal now. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
There are. In fact, this paper briefly uses those terms, before dropping back to "homosexual" and "nonhomosexual": androphillic and gynophillic. They're not common, but they're also not hard to use. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of section "Brain anatomy"[edit]

I have delete the section "Brain anatomy" because it contained claims about differences between men and women brains, which could be used to support the superiority of one sex. For instance, the paragraph:

Women have significantly better connected neural networks compared to men's neural networks, according to a study on people aged 22-35.

clearly says that "women are superior to men". Also, there was the graph

Average brain weight by sex and age

which shows that men have more heavy brains than women, and so they are superior to women.

Seriously, stop with this sexist pseudoscience!!

Furthermore, the page is about "Cognitive differences", and brain has nothing to do with cognition, so the section should have not been there from the beginning. --Lankaster (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A double standard[edit]

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

Men have larger brain volume and brain weight com­pared to women on a macroscopic scale.[8][9] The brain being a highly complex structure, this of course doesn't automatically translate to higher intelligence. (Sorry misogynists.)

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:

Women have significantly better connected neural networks compared to men's neural networks, according to a study on people aged 22-35.[13][14] The brain being a highly complex structure, this of course doesn't automatically translate to higher intelligence. (Sorry misandrists.)

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

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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie 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 @Ikanreed 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie/sig "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 @Ikanreed 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.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie "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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie "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)
@Lankaster 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)
@Ariel31459 "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)
@Ariel31459Well, 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)
@Lankaster 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. 😜 --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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"[edit]

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? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

<insert good post emoji here> 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

so uh...[edit]

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 @Ikanreed 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?

A 2014 meta-analysis[1] found that: "it is clear that there are sex differences in empathy from birth, and sex differences appear to be consistent and stable across the lifespan (e.g., Michalska et al., 2013;[2] O’Brien et al., 2013[3]), with females demonstrating higher levels of empathy than males, and children who are higher in empathy early in development continue to be higher in empathy later in development (Eisenberg et al., 1999[4]). This developmental stability suggests that sex differences are unlikely to be caused exclusively by postnatal experiences (e.g., maternal care), but rather reflect some evolutionarily important difference between males and females that is present, at least in some form, from birth, consistent with reports that empathy is moderately heritable (e.g., Baron-Cohen, 2002;[5] Chakrabarti and Baron-Cohen, 2013;[6] Knafo et al., 2008;[7] Rushton, 2004;[8] Zahn-Waxler et al., 1992a,b;[9][10] Zahn-Waxler et al., 2001[11])." Regarding the claim that sex differences in empathy are "stable across the lifespan", it is worth mentioning that the authors cite a study of Michalska[2] which actually says that such differences "widens from childhood to adulthood."

1. Christov-Moorea; Simpson; Coudé; Grigaityte; Iacoboni; Ferrari (2014). "Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior". Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 46: 604-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001. Open Access

2. Michalska; Kinzler; Decety (2013). "Age-related sex differences in explicit measures of empathy do not predict brain responses across childhood and adolescence". Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience (3): 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2012.08.001.

3. O'Brien; Konrath; Grühn; Hagen (2013). "Empathic concern and perspective taking: linear and quadratic effects of age across the adult life span". The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences 68 (2): 168-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbs055.

4. Eisenberg; Guthrie; Murphy; Shepard; Cumberland; Carlo (1999). "Consistency and development of prosocial dispositions: a longitudinal study". Child Development 70 (6): 1360-72. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10621961.

5. "The extreme male brain theory of autism.". Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 (6): 248-254. 2002. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12039606.

6. Chakrabarti; Baron-Cohen (2013). Understanding the genetics of empathy and the autistic spectrum. In: Baron-Cohen S, Tager-Flusberg H, Lombardo MV, editors. Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from developmental social neuroscience. pp. 326-342

7. Knafo; Zahn-Waxler; Van Hulle; Robinson; Rhee (2008). "The developmental origins of a disposition toward empathy: Genetic and environmental contributions". Emotion (Washington D.C.) 8 (6): 737-52. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014179.

8. Rushton (2004). "Genetic and environmental contributions to pro-social attitudes: a twin study of social responsibility". Proceedings. Biological Sciences. 271 (1557): 2583-5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615684/.

9. Zahn-Waxler; Radke-Yarrow; Wagner; Chapman (1992). "Development of concern for others". Developmental Psychology 28 (1): 126-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.126.

10. Zahn-Waxler; Carolyn; Robinson; JoAnn; Emde (1992). "The development of empathy in twins". Developmental Psychology 28 (6): 1038-1047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1038.

11. Zahn-Waxler; Schiro; Robinson; Emde; Schmitz (2001). Empathy and prosocial patterns in young MZ and DZ twins. In: Emde RN, Hewitt JK, editors. Infancy to Early Childhood: Genetic and Environmental Influences on Developmental Change. Oxford University Press; New York, NY. pp. 141-162

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)

Things I feel really do need to be cut[edit]

Item 1 greater male variability hypothesis(at least given the citation we use)[edit]

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)
@James Earl Cash "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)
@Ikanreed 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
And here he comes @LeftyGreenMario 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)
@Lankaster 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 "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, @LeftyGreenMario 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 @Ikanreed responded just fine to @Lankaster, Lankaster just doesn't like the response and is now ignoring it and claiming it didn't happen. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 09:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
"Lankaster just doesn't like the response and is now ignoring it and claiming it didn't happen." @GrammarCommie 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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Lankaster 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie "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)
@Lankaster 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie 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)
@Ikanreed 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Brain structures variance and intelligence variance[edit]

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"? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@James Earl Cash "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.
@Ikanreed "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)