Talk:Sex and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sex and intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class.

Contents 1 mistake? 2 Gender or Sex? 3 POV tag 4 Study 5 Removal of NPOV tag 6 Irwing–Lynn and Blinkhorn 7 Fascinating article 8 Merge from Mathematical abilities and gender issues 9 References 10 Einstein 11 Reading or Writing? - 'Evolution over time' 12 SAT 13 wendy johnson's work 14 scotland study 15 Good source 16 Article name 17 to add

[edit] mistake?

"men averaged IQs about 8.4 points higher than women, while women averaged memories about 7.5 IQ points higher than men"

have i misread this because it is late, or is there a typo somewhere? --Carbonrodney 12:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure sounds weird. I don't have quick access to PAID, but a trip to the University library should find you the article in question. This would be worth cleaning up. Arbor 13:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender or Sex?

wouldn't it be more accurate to title this article "sex and intelligence"? --Rikurzhen 07:46, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a linguistics expert, but I chose "gender" because the word "sex" can be confused with "sexual intercourse", and I wasn't sure if the meaning of the title "sex and intelligence" would be clear. AndyCapp 19:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gender is something other than sex (gender is a social construction, sex is a biological construction), and most people past the fifth grade can say the word "sex" without necessarily thinking it has to do with intercourse. The irony is that you probably think it is "sex and intelligence" but in reality it actually is "gender and intelligence". In any event, the current page is ridiculously POV (brings up things without bringing up criticisms), so I am adding a NPOV tag until this gets worked on a bit more. There is currently no suggestion on this page that there is an entire set of scientific and sociological studies which argue against every point made here. --Fastfission 01:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

If 'gender' only refers to the social construct, then shouldn't this article be moved to Sex and intelligence (considering people won't confuse it with sexual intercourse)? - Jacottier 01:39, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Gender is the identity, sex is the biology, roughly speaking (the biology is less concrete than that, but that is somewhat beyond the point). It depends on what one means. I'm assuming it is the biology which is implied here, though "Gender and intelligence" (or "Gender and test scores") would be interesting as well. If one was truly worried about people confusing it with intercourse one could say "Biological sex and intelligence", I suppose, though it is somewhat redundant. If you look at the page on gender, it goes into more detail. --Fastfission 21:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

fasfission, clearly from neglect, rather than malice/bias. But moreover, if differences in male/female ability are more biological than social in origin, then "sex" is the word we are looking for. On that point alone, merely choosing gender and intelligence over sex and intelligence is an built in bias. --Rikurzhen 02:23, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly bias of some form, though I did not assume it to be malicious. Bias can come from lack of exposure to certain debates, too. Anyway, I think what you are trying to say is, "If this page is about the debate over biological differences between males and females, then sex is the word we want. If it is about social differences between males and females, then gender is the word we want." The little joke I was making is that most of the so-called biological differences between males and females are social in origin (so "gender" would be more accurate in an ultimate sense). Anyway, that was just a little joke. Yes, what you are meaning is "Sex and intelligence", if you want the page to be about the debate over whether there are biological differences in intelligence between men and women (the NPOV notice is because the page doesn't actually even acknowledge there is a debate). --Fastfission 21:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, this is clearly little more than a stub right now. However, the problem is that we can't talk about biological differences and social differences in isolation, because their interaction is clearly a part of the equation. --Rikurzhen 00:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of brain size really needs to be improved or removed. We're interested in physiological differences in the brains of human males and females. This isn't limited to raw size (which is a horrible measure of anything) but relative volumes, and densities of different brain regions. --[[User::Cypherx|Cypherx]] 5:10am, 27 May 2005

[edit] POV tag

I've re-inserted the NPOV tag (its original additions were discussed above so the line that "no reason was given on talk" was either untrue or just lazy). To reiterate the reason, it is that this article does not at all even indicate that there is an entire body of scholarship built up around the notion that studies of sex and intelligence, much less the conclusions are heavily flawed, much less present this point of view. The article as it currently stands presents the research in a very one-sided manner, does not present criticism, and does not indicate that there is very little consensus in the scientific community on this issue. (I'm not an expert on the literature in this topic, so I'm not able to add it all in myself. However I'm well aware that it, and the "debate", exists). Until this is added to the article, it cannot possibly be considered of a "neutral point of view" on the subject, and should be appropriately flagged. --Fastfission 02:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fastfission, I added a prestigious study which found no differences in mean IQ by sex. I think this more or less balances the POV. Certainly this topic has not been fully fleshed out here. But what's missing is more detail than major POVs. I'm not seeing a major not-NPOV problem any longer. --Rikurzhen 03:23, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think one study balances things out, especially since all of the other studies are presented as fact without any hint that they might be debated within the scientific community. The clear case one gets when reading this article is "oh, they've done lots of studies, all leading towards a single conclusion, except maybe one study" which is not, in my experience, a valid representation of the work done in the field. It is lacking detail AND a major POV -- and so the POV tag should remain, as a "work in progress" sticker. I'll try to look up a bit more on the overall debate if I have the time and try to contribute to balancing things out a bit. --Fastfission 15:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With regard to average differences in overall IQ, Deary et al. (2003) [found no mean difference] is the only study I know of that can claim to be fully representational, and even so they have to go to great lengths to argue their data is good. Maybe we need to focus more explication on that study. --Rikurzhen 17:13, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wow this is a really POV article, just like the other "IQ and" articles which are loaded with select source discriminatory rhetoric.

[edit] Study

Here [1] is an interesting study. I didn't get time to read through it, but if anyone wants to read through it and add a summary into the article, go ahead. Dd2 03:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of NPOV tag

I removed the NPOV tag because (as of the state of the article on July 13, 2005) I don't see any evidence of bias, the article is simply stating the current state of the available knowledge and I fell does it pretty accurately. - DNewhall

I support this. The article still needs a lot of work, but the NPOV tag was a poor (and misleading) way of saying that. ���Arbor 19:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't why it is placed. But anyway, I think it does a better job now of portraying this as a topic still very much in debate. --Fastfission 21:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irwing–Lynn and Blinkhorn

a new study by Paul Irwing and Richard Lynn says that men are about 5 IQ points more intelligents than woman. Heres a link: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17909-1749346,00.html

The study is in the British Journal of Psychology [2] and is amazingly flawed [3] --Coroebus 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Googling, I found a PDF of Blinkhorn's comment here: [4]. (To be honest, I find Blinkhorn's comments less than impressive. This is one of the cases where reading the opposition's argument convinces me of the veracity of the original paper.) Arbor 15:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The paper fails to meet standard methodological criteria for meta-analysis and Blinkhorn's point about excluding the largest study that covers nearly half the subjects in the meta-analysis is damning. The use of median effect sizes in a meta-analysis that includes sample sizes from 100 to 10,000 is similarly ridiculous. Consider their statement "Contrary to these assertions, our meta-analyses show that the sex difference on the Progressive Matrices is neither non-existent nor 'trivially small' and certainly not '1-2 IQ points either way', that is, in favour of men or women. Our results showing a 4.6 to 5 IQ point advantage for men is testimony to the value of meta-analysis as compared with impressions gained from two or three studies." This is actually completely false, their own data shows that there is a 1-2 IQ point difference (in favour of men)! The only way they can reach a figure of 5 IQ points is to do away with any attempt to correct for study size and take the median effect size, thus ranking tiny studies of scores of people the same as large studies of thousands. It is sheer intellectual fraud, and I'm quite surprised it was published in that form. --Coroebus 16:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I think Blinkhorn's response is sufficiently well-published (and even spawned a Guardian article) to warrant inclusion. I did this, please clean it up or change it. Arbor 17:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll clean up the article provoked controversy bit as it appears to be referring to a story prompted by the Lynn paper, so it should really be included with that.--Coroebus 18:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Blinkhorn is responding to the paper that says that male university students have higher avg. iqs than female university students. Lynn has also published OTHER papers that say that adult men have higher avg. iqs than adult women. The article doesnt make this clear. Qvkfgmjqy 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascinating article

I've always wondered about the physiological reasons why men seem more logical than women, but women seem to remember little details about past events better. --Atrahasis 16:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Mathematical abilities and gender issues

By chance I found Mathematical abilities and gender issues, which has a large intersection with the present article. I suggest merging them hither. Arbor 08:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

This article could do with the references being sorted so that they are referred to from the text.--Coroebus 18:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein

Any reference for this claim?

"Scientists used to believe that intelligence was directly related to gray matter. This belief persisted until Albert Einstein's brain was made available for study by a select group of neuroscientists." --Coroebus 08:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reading or Writing? - 'Evolution over time'

"disadvantages to men in reading. They suggest the male advantage in measures of typical male vocations is not predictive, but that the other strong differences are. Thus, they claim to be concerned about the relative disadvantage of men in writing"

I think this is actually measuring reading comprehension (not writing ability), but do not have full access to the article it is citing. Clarity from one who does would be nice. --24.16.251.40 22:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (Formerly 24.22.227.53)

[edit] SAT

the SAT has a self selection bias, there is no point in keeping it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qvkfgmjqy (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Since the SAT is not an IQ test nor appitude test(so says the College Board), why would it be mentioned here? Just curious of your opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.23.230.81 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] wendy johnson's work

this paper is the latest in a series by wendy johnson. it confirms and extends the main points in this article. should be useful. --WD RIK NEW 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wendy Johnson and Jr., Thomas J. Bouchard, Sex differences in mental abilities: g masks the dimensions on which they lie, Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 23-39. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.03.012)

Abstract: Empirical data suggest that there is at most a very small sex difference in general mental ability, but men clearly perform better on visuospatial tasks while women clearly perform better on tests of verbal usage and perceptual speed. In this study, we integrated these overall findings with predictions based on the Verbal-Perceptual-Rotation (VPR) model ([Johnson, W., and Bouchard, T. J. (2005a). Constructive replication of the visual-perceptual-image rotation (VPR) model in Thurstone's (1941) battery of 60 tests of mental ability. Intelligence, 33, 417-430.; Johnson, W., and Bouchard, T. J. (2005b). The structure of human intelligence: It's verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid and crystallized. Intelligence, 33. 393-416.]) of the structure of mental abilities. We examined the structure of abilities after removing the effects of general intelligence, identifying three underlying dimensions termed rotation-verbal, focus-diffusion, and memory. Substantial sex differences appeared to lie along all three dimensions, with men more likely to be positioned towards the rotation and focus poles of those dimensions, and women displaying generally greater memory. At the level of specific ability tests, there were greater sex differences in residual than full test scores, providing evidence that general intelligence serves as an all-purpose problem solving ability that masks sex differences in more specialized abilities. The residual ability factors we identified showed strong genetic influences comparable to those for full abilities, indicating that the residual abilities have some basis in brain structure and function. Keywords: Sex differences; Residual mental abilities; Verbal and spatial abilities; General intelligence; VPR theory; Genetic and environmental influences

[edit] scotland study

WP:V applies --WD RIK NEW 01:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

Why did you post this? Is there a problem? futurebird 02:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just about the citation needed tag. A citation really is needed. It's not obvious that age matters, and so the claim that it could needs to be attributed/sourced. --WD RIK NEW 02:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I'll see if I can dig somthing up. futurebird 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good source

Posted by an ip user to R & I, could be used here:

Lave (1988) Showed that housewives in Berkeley California who could successfully do the mathematics needed for comparison shopping were unable to do the same mathematics when they were placed inside a classroom environment.

We need to dig up the name of this paper.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 00:27, Feb 11, 2007 (UTC).

Hi Futurebird I think this is the source you're looking for "Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life (Learning in Doing)" by Jean Lave, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1988) 0521357349. There's also a 2003 imprint from Cambridge UP. Lave also co-wrote "Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives)" in 1991 (also Cambridge UP) ISBN: 0521423740. I hope this helps--Cailil 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!futurebird 03:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Hmm, it seems this article was originally at Gender and intelligence, but for some reason, that's apparently objectionable. I am somewhat dubious of the objection that gender is a social construct, because that usage seems limited to a technical group, but I don't insist on that title either, I just think this current title is also not ideal. It could as easily refer to the act of having sex and how it relates to intelligence. Maybe a change to a different title entirely? Whatever is done though, somebody ought to edit IQ though. Mister.Manticore 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. A better title in is order. futurebird 21:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] to add

Higher face recognition ability in girls: Magnified by own‐sex and own‐ethnicity bias

futurebird 21:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)