Talk:Cognitive differences between sexes/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 14 March 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Topic

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?

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

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

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

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

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! 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 consequences, 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.

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)

* dons Mod Hat * 

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@Bongolian—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 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! 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

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

@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. 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! 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! 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! 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! 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! 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! 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! 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! 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! 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! 01:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Transgender reference

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"?—127.0.0.1  (talk • stalk) 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"

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)