Talk:Dimitri van der Linden
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
|
This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Ridiculous and immature[edit]
This article is ridiculous. It doesn't critique at all the study he co-authored, in fact it doesn't even describe his research or appoints any of its supposed problems. It is merely an attack on uncomfortable conclusions. The study by van der Linden that established that men's brains give them an advantage in intelligence did use validated IQ tests to corroborate the thesis and analyse the link between brain size and intelligence, so it's inaccurate to say that he offered no evidence for his thesis. If he hadn't, would he have been published in a peer-reviewed journal in the first place? It seems that it is fine to quote studies based on IQ scores if these support a feminist thesis, but not if they don't.
To refute van der Linden, the entry references a study led by Roberto Colom, a 20-years-old paper titled "Negligible Sex Differences in General Intelligence". That's fine but why should this study be more valid than van der Linden's? Plus, the latest study that Colom co-authored on sex differences in IQ did find such a difference, and one, in fact, that is even more massive than that found by van der Linden — 5 IQ points[1] vs. 3.75 IQ points.
And by the way, it is equally inaccurate to say that brain size is not correlated with intelligence. Van der Linden's study did find by using sophisticated statistical models that there was such a correlation, and so did many other studies by independent teams. Why do these studies count less than those that have supposedly found the thesis of no brain-IQ correlation? 177.133.104.61 (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)