Talk:Sex differences in intelligence

variability hypothesis
Very strange:"Other research has concluded that there is larger variability in female scores compared to male scores" contradicts  what is said lower down under "Variability". Also the reference given says "there is strong evidence that boys and men exhibit more variable scores on intelligence tests overall..." (Chrisler page 302) I have reversed the meaning. It would be interesting to know how this discrepancy arose.Backep1 (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Backep1
 * It arose due to this IP fiddling around. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Lynn
Regarding this edit: This was partly prompted by an attempt to add some of Richard Lynn's work in Mankind Quarterly as a source.

Based on some discussions at talk:Race and intelligence and spill-over at various noticeboards, I want to make sure that reliable sources, such as Hunt, are not being used to over-state the academic importance and acceptance of obsolete or fringe positions on intelligence.

So for this article, part of my concern is the comparative 'loudness' of fringe sources. Describing Rushton, Jensen, and Lynn as controversial would be a gross understatement. The raw quantity of discussion doesn't necessarily correlate with acceptance. For example, if a 2005 paper by Lynn prompts a half dozen responses ranging from skepticism to outright dismissal, this could be presented as answering a common misconception... but it's also possible that this is falsely presenting it as two sides of the same coin.

"Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments" was specifically an update of Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. Since that was specifically in response to The Bell Curve it's not surprising they would discuss Jensen. Most of the mentions of Jensen in that document seem to challenge his findings, if not outright dispute them. Is this more positive use because Jensen was prominent, or because he was relevant, or is it merely because his work was convenient to the point they needed to make? These are rhetorical questions, because I don't think Jensen's legacy is necessarily relevant to understanding the academic mainstream itself. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevant secondary source deemed Jensen's work here relevant, probably because the overall mass of research in this area is limited. However, I, in general, have a difficult time understanding the purpose of the last paragraph here in regards to the discussion of the edits. Jensen is cited in a reliable secondary source like Hunt's book is cited here as well for other research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.204.252 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Chess
I believe the top 20 highest rated chess players are all men. Analysis of chess and its gender issues may be a good topic to mention in this article. I believe sourcing exists, for example, this Journal of Biological Science article. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * it looks like a primary source so I’m not entirely sure I can trust it.CycoMa (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . It might be a review actually. I don't see any novel data, I just see analyses of existing studies. For example, another aspect of the data reported by Howard (2005a, 2006) and Between 1990 and 2005, the years for which reliable data are available. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * MEDLINE indexed journal too. If I'm right about it not having novel data, this is WP:MEDRS. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I looked it up on pubmed and it’s not labeled as a review?CycoMa (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Doesn't appear to be labeled with anything. Not labeled with study or trial either. I've seen PubMed articles without labels before. In that situation I would assume we need to make our own determination. In my opinion, primary means you're doing the study, collecting your own data. Secondary means you're looking at multiple other people's studies and data and synthesizing conclusions from them. This appears to be secondary, although happy to hear other opinions. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a newer resource on chess about sex differences in intelligence? I haven't looked yet, but I'm very hesitant to base the information on a 2007 resource. GBFEE (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * it looks like most sources here are older than 2007WesPhil (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For reporting on historical ways and studies that received attention in secondary or tertiary resources. Not for something like the top 20 highest-rated chess players. The top 20 highest-rated chess players is something that may have changed since 2007. And when it's analyzed in terms of comparing human male and human female intelligence, it's all the more important that it not be so old or a primary resource. Math performance has changed, and we say this with newer resources and not just by reporting on a 2008 study. The sex differences in brain anatomy will remain, and so a 2007 resource for those differences that are well-known would be fine. But even in the brain and intelligence section, no resource is older than 2010. When it's new or doubtful material on brain sex differences, no one should be using a 2007 resource. There are reasons newer resources that are also secondary or tertiary are required for things people say at neuroscience of sex differences. Regardless, there's plenty of resources older newer than 2007 in the sex differences in intelligence article, and newer resources should be one of our aims for this topic except for when it doesn't matter if they're newer or not. GBFEE (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See, I would normally agree, but the study in question under this thread seems to be a review. Despite the lack of labeling. Obviously, the top 20 may have changed, but this study is analyzing the reasons why there aren't as many high-performing women as men in chess. I think from a historical standpoint, that is a relevant thing to include. The reason why there were fewer women than men among top chess players in that time period is not going to change with time. It provides evidence for why, historically, women have not been among the top performers, not necessarily a prescriptive claim that men are smarter than women. In fact, it shows that women are not less intelligent because of their lack of high performers in chess. And last I checked, the top chess players are mostly men still. All of it seems really similar to books like Hunt's listed here that include studies that are quite older than 2007, and most of the prominent studies conducted by Lynn, for example, are before 2007. WesPhil (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, "WesPhil" (who edits occasionally), studies like Lynn received attention in secondary resources and so on. Resources much newer than 2007 still discuss studies like Lynn. There's nothing to indicate that the above is due in Wikipedia terms. We also shouldn't use this resource to analyze what you said. We should use secondary resources (or other resources that are just as acceptable) to review the literature and beyond 2007 to analyze those things. Maybe a bit of it would be okay in the historical section, but I wouldn't call 2007 "historical." Maybe other opinions here will differ from mine on this, but I've had my say on it. GBFEE (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * being included in a review that is recent does not make the data in the review recent. It’s still the same data. 2007 is not too old of a date for an issue like chess masters who change relatively little. The fact is the top players are still men, so how would these conclusions change in that time? And drop the snark. On another note, since you seem so bold on this, do you have a more recent study about this issue or are you just going to sweep this issue under the rug? I think the disparity in chess is very important to include. WesPhil (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Snark? Oh my. I wouldn't want there to be an implication I've been snarking. You have my assurance that I will aim to refrain from snarking with the same effort you aim to never forget to sign your posts, because not signing your posts is very, very obviously a mistake and is only something a new editor or other editor who's edited very, very little would do.
 * About the stuff you said, how do you think we assess what studies to include? The policy is thataway. It matters if a study has received attention in a secondary resource. You know I wasn't saying data being analyzed in a recent review means that the data is recent. Sure, we'll sweep studies that haven't been shown to be due for inclusion under the rug. GBFEE (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve never tried to say that I’m an experienced editor, but I’m not an inexperienced person in regards to science and the relevancy of science. I know you weren’t saying that the data literally becomes new, but I fail to see the practical significance of old data being covered in newer sources. It doesn’t change the data. And there isn’t a “we” really since you’ve been the only obstacle to including a chess section. That being said, I do agree with you that we shouldn’t base the section on a study like this alone, but I am still adamant on my view that a section on chess should be at least discussed when it’s so obvious that men dominate in that field. If men and women are truly equal in cognitive abilities, we wouldn’t see this trend, so the article would benefit from discussing real world scenarios where intelligence can play out. I hope you can at least agree with me there. WesPhil (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for signing your post on first occurrence this time. I never said, and I definitely didn't indicate, you were trying to say you're an experienced editor. Trying to convey inexperience, though? I'll leave others to read between the lines on that (what my "snark" means). You say I've been the only obstacle to including a chess section. Nope. Read above again. Another editor was hesitant about including the material based on that resource, and then I expressed hesitancy about including the material based on that resource. You have appropriate resources that show the material is due for inclusion, and that we should even include an entire chess section? Then provide those resources and make a strong case for inclusion. You haven't. I've "been an obstacle" because of the Wikipedia process, its policies and guidelines. You've admitted that you "fail to see the practical significance of old data being covered in newer sources", which reveals you either do not understand the policy on due weight and things said at the medical guidance page or you don't care about them. How is it that you don't see the practical significance of the scientific community analyzing and commenting on the results of a study? Since you apparently don't see it, why should we continue discussing this? I've had my say, and I'm not saying more about this unless you or someone else makes a strong argument and a consensus emerges for your viewpoint. GBFEE (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And if you're going to be one of those people who say that the medical guidance page isn't for topics like this, I'm going to say you're wrong. Look around. A lot of debating, at pages like race and intelligence and other pages on intelligence, involves strong arguments that the medical guidance page applies to much of the material. If it's just social stuff, yeah, that's a different beast. But Wikipedia still prefers secondary resources and that studies show some significance by having been analyzed in secondary resources before including them. If the study hasn't been given any attention at all in secondary resources after some time, the Wikipedia process is to ask why Wikipedia should give it any attention. GBFEE (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not gonna act like I am more qualified to debate when which Wikipedia guidelines apply or not. I can see your point obviously, so I’m gonna defer authority on that from here to you. There are many secondary sources that still say top twenty chess players and they’re still all men. But I’m not here to necessarily suggest specific articles, and I will end this with saying I still support a section addressing cognitive abilities applied to competitions like chess. I should’ve approached this way in the first place, but I want to express my hope that this issue is not abandoned simply because one source offered by a user does not meet the consensus criteria for inclusion. WesPhil (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

September 22/23, 2021 edits‎
I did a rvt on edits by Stjump, although I put back in one part. I named some reasons for the rvt in my editing description. I can explain more if anyone wants me to. For example, besides primary resources or reports on primary research, and some use of resources that are so old, some of the material synthesized summaries of the research. In the reading and verbal skills section, an external link to cohend (focusing on effect size) was added. Wikipedia articles normally shouldn't include external links in the body. Maybe other users will name issues they have with the edits or what they think we should keep.

I'm also just going to say that the way Stjump contributes is the way that EvgFakka edits. I'll say "exactly the way that EvgFakka contributes" (if I'm going to be entirely honest about what I think), right down to the focus on effect size. EvgFakka threatened to create thousands of accounts to keep editing this way after warnings to stop. Stjump, if you're EvgFakka, I think it would show goodwill to just say so and then edit as EvgFakka only. If you're not EvgFakka, then you can just ignore the part about EvgFakka. But I have to say it looks really, really doubtful that another user would arrive at this non-busy article and contribute to it in a way indistinguishable to EvgFakka and within such a short time frame. It's within a short time frame because it's not even months since EvgFakka last edited. I find that even the editing descriptions are alike. I also noticed that if I stop editing for a few days or longer, then EvgFakka returns (sometimes to edit as an IP address), and that Stjump is on this same trajectory. GBFEE (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey GBFEE, is this how I comment/start a conversation with you? Wanted to discuss the changes you made to some of my edits on the differences in intelligence between the sexes wiki page. I have no idea who EvgFakka is, but I'm not them. This is my first time editing a Wiki page, and "stjump" is the only username I've had. I ended up conducting substantial research on gender and STEM, as well as spatial awareness, over the summer and felt compelled to build out the Wikipedia page on the subject, as it was lacking. That's what led me to this particular wiki page, where I noticed several other issues in the other sections. I've been working to build them out in chunks. Is there an "acceptable" way of including an external link? I added the rpsychologist.com page because it's the best visualization of cohen's d I've found and makes the concept substantially easier for laypeople to understand, but I was unaware that was considered bad form. Stjump (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Stjump. Okay, since you say you're not EvgFakka (and it's healthier not to stay suck on that or speculate that you're someone copying EvgFakka or pulling my chain), do you have any issue with reading over EvgFakka's talk page and my discussion with EvgFakka at Talk:Sex differences in human physiology? I just want to make sure we're on the same page about issues people have had with the way EvgFakka contributes. For example, users have told EvgFakka to avoid using primary resources. Does this edit you made mean you understand we should avoid them? Thank you for the edit. Using resources that are so old is another issue. Okay, I guess the so-old resources aren't a big issue if they're used in the history section. But you also have to be careful not to synthesize data.
 * What issues do you have with the page? We can work through individual sections here and discuss what we think should be added or cut. For the big changes you made and I did a rvt on, I don't think a comparison of how beliefs are today, or that information about the progress women have made today, should be in the history section. I think that section should just be about the old-time views. I don't think we should include information about one study unless a review or meta-analysis highlighted it for an important reason and it truly improves the article. There's so many tests out there and they come and go. What makes any one significant or special enough to mention? I don't think we should say things like "see 'Brain and intelligence' section below." When you say "This is supported by the fact that, nowadays, women's participation in general and advanced math classes has matched men's, and there is no longer a gap in arithmetical reasoning (see section on 'Mathematics performance' below)", is that not you adding in your own personal thoughts? We could say something like that in a more encyclopedic way. What issue do you have with the "In favor of males or females in g factor" title? Maybe we can discuss and agree on a different title. When you say "the evidence for this is mixed, but the hypothesis remains plausible", is that in the 2008 resource anywhere? Also, why should we use this 2008 resource that focuses on a specific region? Why should we include the quote by Jakob Pietschnig? Why not only summarize what the meta-analysis said? Why remove "Across countries, males have performed better on mathematics tests than females"? I find that this gives context for the rest of the section. We do also say that "but the male-female difference in math scores is related to gender inequality in social roles" and talk more about the gender issues. Why include a 1995 resource? Was the 1995 resource included to talk about cohen's d? The Wikipedia process says that if we're to compare how things have changed over the years, we should use a resource that does, and not put together different resources from different years and offer our own analysis. GBFEE (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this analysis and want to emphasize that primary sources should not be used. Only review articles, please. And do not cherry pick what to say from them. Crossroads -talk- 05:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey GBFEE, again I'm not EvgFakka. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to prove that. However, I expect you'll come to realize I'm someone else as we continue to converse. I would strongly prefer to keep this short and avoid an editing war. While I don't have the time nor the desire to read through your arguments with someone else in full, I did take a quick glance. It sounds like the use of primary sources was your main issue. Is that correct? I agree we should avoid making large conclusions from primary sources. Looking at the page now, it seems any primary sources I added have already been removed, so we should be fine now. Many of my additions were meta-analyses/secondary sources anyways. Also, what does "rvt" stand for, specifically? Revert?


 * In regards to the historical perspectives section: It needs substantially more nuance, and it needs to rebuke theories that have been debunked. If you're going to include historical perspectives, they actually need to be put in perspective with modern information. Otherwise, we end up peddling false pedagogical ideologies, which does not contribute to human knowledge. You state on the talk page that we should use secondary/meta-analytic sources, but this section is based primarily off of the opinions of individuals as opposed to referencing real data. Even though you've cited books, you are not citing actual data; you're citing individual's opinions. We should move to look at what the data actually said and how it compares to current data. (In particular, the data on brain size differences resulting in higher male intelligence is now widely regarded as pseudoscience. It's damaging to propagate outdated information without acknowledging that it's outdated/has been proven false.)


 * I found a secondary source (a 2016 review article by Janet Hyde) that has a good section on the history of psychological research on gender differences. (See: Sex and cognition: gender and cognitive functions). I'd like to replace most of the individual opinions in the history section with this information. We should also focus only on data on cognitive differences that are relevant to a discussion on intelligence (e.g., mathematical, verbal, and spatial abilities). This section strays away from differences in intelligence into differences in temperament/behavior (e.g., women being "less morally developed," references to social roles like family support, stereotypes of women being "excitable, emotional, sensitive" and "not suited for political participation.") These insights are irrelevant to the topic of the Wiki page and should be removed. Lastly, the section is anachronistic. You have a sentence stating that current consensus is that gender plays no role in intelligence, then switch back to referencing a 1916 study. The section should follow a chronological order, which is why I moved this sentence, "During the early twentieth century, the scientific consensus shifted to the view that gender plays no role in intelligence," to the end. I'll do a rewrite and post it here. We can discuss it and agree on a final before publishing to avoid an editing war. Ok?


 * In regards to your specific questions: there is no longer a gap in arithmetical reasoning--that is not my opinion, it's a fact based on the data in the mathematical section. However, I am fine keeping that sentence out of the historical section (and using a more encyclopedic writing style) if we make the rewrites suggested above.


 * Regarding the "In favor of males or females in g factor" title, it didn't seem necessary to have two sections, given that both the 'in favor of differences' and 'in favor of no differences' sections cite mixed data. That section ought to be streamlined/trimmed down a bit in general.


 * Regarding the question on the sentence, "the evidence for this is mixed, but the hypothesis remains plausible:" I took that directly from the source. Here is the direct quote from the paper itself (happy to provide more context if you need as well): "Because of this, he proposes, there is no sex difference in general intelligence in childhood, but a sex difference favoring males emerges after age 16. The evidence for this hypothesis is mixed (e.g., Dolan et al., 2006; Ilai & Willerman, 1989; Johnson & Bouchard, 2007a; Lim, 1994; Mackintosh & Bennett, 2005; Mau & Lynn, 2001; Reynolds et al., 2008; van der Sluis, Derom, et al., 2008; van der Sluis, Posthuma, et al., 2006), but the hypothesis is plausible." Even if this study focuses on an individual region, it provides more context outside of one researcher's opinion. If this was an innate, biological difference between men/women (which of course is what we're trying to elucidate in the Wiki page), then you would expect the phenomenon to be consistent across cultures. I chose this source because it was the best I could find on such a specific subject. Do you still take issue with this source?


 * You also asked why I changed, "across countries males have performed better on mathematics tests than females." That one's simple: it implies that men outperform women in all countries, which is untrue and contradictory with the PISA data provided later. Men outperform women in SOME countries. Are you fine with me re-wording it or incorporating in the "male-female difference in math scores is related to gender inequality in social roles.[33] In a 2008 study..." part of that sentence after the PISA data, which better quantifies the commonality of gender gaps across countries anyways? I also think the paragraphs could be re-ordered. We should put the 2008 meta-analysis first, because it gets straight to the point and is by far the most robust piece of data in that section (over 7 million people!) Then, it would be good to include that first paragraph either before the SAT section or preferably incorporated into the SAT/PISA paragraph, as it provides useful historical context. Can I go ahead and re-order the paragraphs or are you going to change it back again if I do? These changes don't substantially alter the conclusions of the section.


 * Regarding your question on summarizing Jakob Pietschnig's quote--you already went ahead and did that, correct? (Without deleting the information?) I'm fine with it being incorporated instead of quoted. It makes no difference to me.


 * As per your last question, "Why include a 1995 resource[10]? Was the 1995 resource included to talk about cohen's d?" I'm not sure that resource was one of mine. What was it used in reference to? Good to know on the Wiki process of comparing how things change over time. I did cite two different sources for the change in SAT scores. I'm assuming that's fine. It's a single, raw data point so there isn't room for ambiguity there. No one has written a review on it.


 * Ok, my turn to ask you questions. What was your issue with the additions to the verbal section? Namely, why did you remove: "Women also generally show a small advantage in verbal abilities including verbal fluency, perceptual speed, and accuracy.[54] However, the gender difference varies across which verbal skill is tested. For example, in a 2016 meta-analysis, no gender differences were found for vocabulary (d = - 0.02), reading comprehension (d = -0.03), or essay writing (d = -0.09), but a moderate female advantage was found for verbal fluency (d = -0.33). A separate meta-analysis looking at data from several big, well-sampled U.S.-based studies found that cohen's d for reading comprehension ranged from -0.18 to 0.002 while effect sizes for vocabulary ranged from -0.06 to 0.25, indicating no substantial female advantage for these skills.[55]"


 * This data is taken from a recent (2016) secondary/meta-analytic source. Providing the cohen's d's provides nice context into the size of the difference as well, which I consider very important. The female verbal/reading advantage is thoroughly discussed/researched in the literature, and naturally should be included in this article.


 * Now that I'm aware of the historical records Wiki has for page changes, I see you left a comment on the spatial awareness change I made regarding CAH. I replaced an old meta-analysis on the topic with a newer one. I have read both studies in full--the new meta-analysis includes all studies from the old one and adds in new data. The conclusion that there is, "no evidence of enhanced spatial ability among these individuals" was not my opinion. It was the title of the paper and conclusion provided in the abstract. However, I am happy to add an additional sentence after that sentence stating the the meta-analysis concluded there's no evidence because of mixed results: some studies showed increased spatial ability, some no change, and some decreased ability among women with CAH. Overall, the combined effect size was negligible. Does that work for you?
 * I also want to add some more case studies here. Specifically, there are interesting cases where the gap is either attenuated or completely eliminated with training or by artifacts of the test itself. I will reference these individual studies through their mentions in secondary sources, as you have requested. I'm going to go ahead and make these additions when I have time, as I do not anticipate you having an issue with them.


 * This next one is a very small request. I noticed you changed back some wording (something similar to "women and men are equally good at math" being reverted to "women are as good as men at math"). I read an interesting study that noted that phrasing a comparison as, "x is as good as y at z" actually implies that y is better. In other words, despite objective equivalency, people read it in a biased way. To avoid unintended bias, I would suggest we use other wording when stating men and women are equal at something (in either direction). Are you fine with minor re-wordings where appropriate? Stjump (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Stjump's final point here. One instance was quoted text which cannot be altered, but I copy edited the image caption to conform with best practice. Generalrelative (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Stjump. It doesn't matter who I think you are if I'm going to choose to talk to and work with you. Any suspicions I have about you no longer lead to EvgFakka, and it's not something I can pursue. I think we both know this. Even though you made an extremely long post, which is something EvgFakka would have done, you have used better grammar than EvgFakka and your "voice" sounds different. What I'm not going to do is a back and forth with you that consists of very long posts like I did with EvgFakka. Your second post is way too long. So per Wikipedia guidance, please be more concise. Please pick one point you want to focus on and we can work on that point, and so forth, and so forth. Generalrelative has taken on one of the points you made already. That edit is fine. I never had an issue with the image caption. The change got caught up with the other changes in the rvt. GBFEE (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And for a starting point, let's discuss the history section. You said, "In regards to the historical perspectives section: It needs substantially more nuance, and it needs to rebuke theories that have been debunked. If you're going to include historical perspectives, they actually need to be put in perspective with modern information. Otherwise, we end up peddling false pedagogical ideologies, which does not contribute to human knowledge." I disagree. Readers are much smarter than that. The section is named appropriately so that readers know it's about historical perspectives. When I read historical sections on Wikipedia, I never see modern-day rebuttals to them. This is because the modern-day views or happenings are spread elsewhere throughout the article. To have modern-day rebuttals in a historical perspectives section is like someone from the future going back in time to rebut someone, using their world-view to challenge someone who simply isn't going to understand it. It also means we're repeating information found elsewhere in the article. What we can do is move the history section down so that it's last, if everyone agrees to that. What do you say? You can continue discussing your argument about history, agree to my suggestion, move on to the next point, or do all three. GBFEE (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We can start with the history section. Many of the readers on this article will be children or teenagers who are impressionable. Moving it to the end will help, and I'm fine not including current updates if we do that. However, providing the opinions of a handful of individuals from history is hardly a complete historical account. I strongly believe we should remove all opinions that are not relevant to the discussion of differences in intelligence. Propagating stereotypes about women being "emotional" has nothing to do with the topic of the page. If this section is to be included, it should be written off of an actual history provided by a secondary source. Generalrelative, thank you for your comment. Perhaps you would like to weigh in on this one as well? Stjump (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like a very sane analysis and I'm happy to see you've proceeded with your intended edits. Let me know if there's any way I can be helpful to you. Generalrelative (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You said, "Even though you've cited books, you are not citing actual data; you're citing individual's opinions. We should move to look at what the data actually said and how it compares to current data." You may have meant "you" as a "general you," but I actually didn't add or cite any opinions in the history section, and what I have added to the page, like women having an advantage on object location, isn't opinion. If you check the history of the page, you'll see the historical perspectives section has been there for a long time. I think it's okay and unproblematic for the section to include historical opinions. The section is labeled "historical perspectives", not "historical facts." It's meant to be about people's thinking at the time, and is therefore typical of how history sections usually are if about a topic that inspires debate. However, I agree with your assessment that "We should also focus only on data on cognitive differences that are relevant to a discussion on intelligence (e.g., mathematical, verbal, and spatial abilities). This section strays away from differences in intelligence into differences in temperament/behavior (e.g., women being 'less morally developed,' references to social roles like family support, stereotypes of women being 'excitable, emotional, sensitive' and 'not suited for political participation.') These insights are irrelevant to the topic of the Wiki page and should be removed." It will also be easy to find secondary and tertiary resources that discuss how people felt about women's intelligence compared to men's at the time. A few tertiary or secondary resources are already in the section. You said that "there is no longer a gap in arithmetical reasoning" is not your opinion, "it's a fact based on the data in the mathematical section." I know that, but the way you had it there in the history section sounded like a person passionately speaking on the topic rather than an encyclopedia dispassionately speaking on it. GBFEE (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that we have the history stuff mostly resolved, I want to skip to a few other things you said. Replying to your points don't need to be in chronological order, so I'm not going in order with this. We should still tackle perceived issues one at a time, but I want to respond to a few things now. You have an issue with "Across countries, males have performed better on mathematics tests than females." But the resource says "across countries." Saying "across countries" isn't saying "all countries", regardless of how a reader interprets it. I also still think it's the better introduction for the section, considering that the section talks a lot about the male advantage in math, however slight or big due to reasons that are societal and cultural. I tried adding "traditionally", but I removed it because the resource doesn't say "traditionally." Perhaps we can locate a resource that does say that. How do you feel about how I repositioned the information? It jumps right to explaining, which I think gives great context for what follows in the section.
 * You said something about CAH. So you're saying you're this IP editor? All right, but for that edit, I didn't say you said anything the resources don't. I said, "It's more complete to explain how the results have been mixed instead of only saying it and not talking about the previous reports that girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia score significantly higher on spatial ability tests. This, however, can be explained in due time." As for your suggestion for this, I'm okay with it. But where you talk about including individual studies, I don't think it's enough that secondary or tertiary resources mention a study. Otherwise, we could include a lot of individual studies based on that. I said, "I don't think we should include information about one study unless a review or meta-analysis highlighted it for an important reason and it truly improves the article. There's so many tests out there and they come and go. What makes any one significant or special enough to mention?"
 * The 1995 resource. Have a look at the rvt I did on your edits.. The 1995 resource wasn't there in the "reading and verbal skills" section before you added it. GBFEE (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, GBFEE, I see--I recognize that you did not write the historical data section. I've deleted the irrelevant references to women's temperament that don't have to do with intelligence differences and am now ready to move on to other issues.
 * Regarding the "Across countries males have performed better on mathematics" sentence: another issue is that this contradicts with the following paragraphs. The resource itself says 'in almost every country,' boys outperform girls in math by high school. That's not true based on the PISA data, where almost 60% of countries have either no difference or female advantage. The difference in high school scores has actually changed dramatically since that book was published (Decreased by half on the PISA from 2015-2018). Are you fine with a small rewording of that first sentence? We can keep the order if you really want--I am fine with the other changes you made.
 * Regarding the CAH question. Yes, I was that IP editor. I guess I wasn't logged in or something on the computer I used that day. However, I was not any of the earlier anon editors. I've made the change we just agreed on by adding, "Some studies showed females with CAH demonstrated superior performance, some saw no performance difference, and some reduced performance, compared to controls." Is that ok with you? As for including individual studies, I agree with your statement, "I don't think we should include information about one study unless a review or meta-analysis highlighted it for an important reason and it truly improves the article." I would be following the same protocol. I've read enough spatial awareness studies to know there are studies that fall under this category. I don't see an issue including that data, so long as we follow Wikipedia's recommendation of using "extreme caution" when discussing the results of one study, and don't interpret the results ourselves. Why don't I write something up on it when I get a chance, and you can give your opinion on it then? It's going to be a busy few weeks for me, but I'll get to it soon.
 * Regarding the old resource, I see the confusion now. I pulled that from a 2016 review article, but it was referencing an older meta-analysis. Perhaps that study belongs in the historic perspectives section. I'll try and track down a more recent one, because the verbal section remains lacking. Stjump (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I should say something else here about the historical viewpoint. The view that women weren't capable of rational thought as a result of their emotions is about intelligence. Men believed women were less smart because of emotionality. So maybe we should include one sentence or paragraph about it. Also, I don't know what's in the resource for "During the early 20th century, the scientific consensus shifted to the view that gender plays no role in intelligence.", but it looks like we should use a much more recent resource than the one used to say that.
 * Regarding the "Across countries, males have performed better on mathematics" sentence, what is your alteration suggestion for it? I think we should inform people of how things used to be on a large scale, not just in the United States. The second paragraph in the section starts out talking about how boys outperformed girls in the United States. But what about the rest of the world? I should check to see if the rest of the paragraph is also about the United States. I think we should look for resources that actually say something like "Across countries, males used to perform better on mathematics than females, but that is largely no longer the case." Cross-cultural analysis is important for this piece on the page. Then we should talk about the gender inequality reason, the parents thing, and then explain how things have shifted. We could still say "traditionally" if we locate a resource that says it.
 * You haven't added "Some studies showed females with CAH demonstrated superior performance, some saw no performance difference, and some reduced performance, compared to controls." yet, but it's okay with me if you add it as long as a resource says or supports it. You said you agree on the criteria for adding individual studies. That's good. Don't forget tertiary resources can also be used to assess the importance or due-ness of the study. You asked about writing up something so we can discuss it. Okay. GBFEE (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The variability hypothesis and WP:SAY
Hi, Generalrelative. The variability hypothesis puts forth the belief that males exhibit greater cognitive variability than females do and this results in them being overrepresented in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution. You said that, after examining this resource, it seems that this is original research in Wikipedia parlance. I don't understand your meaning. The resource looks to support it. Are you saying it's original research because it uses "bottom and top of the distribution" to speak of a study rather than generally? If that's the case, there's other resources that say "top and bottom of the IQ distribution", or something like it, when speaking of the variability hypothesis. It appears some are in the variability hypothesis article. I guess "top and bottom of the IQ distribution" doesn't need to be in the lead since "having both highest and lowest scores on tests of cognitive abilities" is in the variability section and we can explain things there. Something else I'll talk about is this edit you made. You used "found" and pointed to WP:SAY, but the guidance says "found" is a word to avoid. "Concluded" isn't there, but I think it's more neutral here because it seems to be used to just say what the research's conclusions are. Academic resources often have a conclusions section. Saying "found" for the variability hypothesis isn't a good choice because it's a controversial topic with a lot of debate surrounding it. Maybe we can agree on a different word? GBFEE (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * GBFEE, thanks for engaging here. The source in question never states outright that higher variability in males "results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution". I've seen someone argue here in that past that this is logically entailed, but we are not meant to make such logical extrapolations ourselves, per WP:OR. The source does refer to a 1932 survey that found both higher variability in males and males disproportionately represented at the top and bottom of the distribution, but per the above we're obviously not going to be relying on such outdated sources. The only other reference to the distribution of IQ in the cited source is a mention of a 2006 study that found that by age 10 boys were over-represented in the top 10%. In neither of these cases, however, was its stated explicitly that males being over-represented in the top and/or bottom of the distribution follows from higher variability in males QED. Again, one might think that it must be so, but we would need a reliable secondary source to say so explicitly before we can include it in the article.
 * I chose "found" because it's less emphatic than "concluded". I'd be happy with "suggested" instead. I agree that it's a controversial topic with a lot of debate surrounding it, so it's important not to make it seem more certain than it is (there's a reason why it's the variability hypothesis rather than the variability theory or the variability principle). Generalrelative (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the "Variability" section and didn't find anything to disconfirm what I've stated. One of the references used to support the overview statement was which does not appear to mention the variability hypothesis at all and the other one is the ref that is used in the lead, which I examined above. We also get a description of the argument in the book Sex and Gender which appears to support the variability hypothesis but then references to a meta-analysis and a review which both challenge the hypothesis. So in sum I'm not seeing anything that would support a restoration of the clause in question. Generalrelative (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Generalrelative, thanks for the detailed response. I can't say I see much difference between "slightly larger variability in male scores in certain areas compared to female scores, which results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution" and "found both higher variability in males and males disproportionately represented at the top and bottom of the distribution." This is because resources say those things when they talk about the variability hypothesis. Are you saying you doubt that the variability hypothesis is about more males than females ending up in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution? I mentioned the variability section because it says "Some studies have identified the degree of IQ variance as a difference between males and females. Males tend to show greater variability on many traits; for example, having both highest and lowest scores on tests of cognitive abilities" and I find it difficult to see how this differs in any substantial way from saying "Other research has concluded that there is slightly larger variability in male scores in certain areas compared to female scores, which results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution." I'm not saying we should re-add "which results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution" to the lead. I was interested in the reasons you had for removing it and calling it original research. I'm saying "more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution" is something the variability hypothesis discusses. It's a core feature of the hypothesis. Sometimes it's phrased differently. For example, the "while boys are over-represented among the very best and very worst performers" phrase you used is an example of one way it might be said.
 * So we have different opinions about which word makes it seem more certain than it is. On the reverse, I think "suggested" is too light when we consider the modern research on the topic. How about "indicates", like the sentence before the line in question? Also, because modern research has continued to find the variability, even when they attribute it to societal or cultural factors, the variability section shouldn't be as one-sided as it is right now. GBFEE (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi GBFEE, I've divided my replies by number for ease of reference.
 * 1) I can't say I see much difference between "slightly larger variability in male scores in certain areas compared to female scores, which results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution" and "found both higher variability in males and males disproportionately represented at the top and bottom of the distribution." That's fine, though there is a difference in that in the latter the disproportionality is not stated as following from the higher variability. In any case we do not need to dispute this because clearly a 1932 study is inadmissible beyond perhaps a mention in the "History" section.
 * 2) Are you saying you doubt that the variability hypothesis is about more males than females ending up in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution? Nope.
 * 3) The sentence in the "Variability" section stating Males tend to show greater variability on many traits; for example, having both highest and lowest scores on tests of cognitive abilities should probably be reworded as well, since it's cited to the same reference as the one I've discussed above, and the other ref doesn't appear to discuss this topic at all.
 * 4) You say I find it difficult to see how this differs in any substantial way from saying "Other research has concluded that there is slightly larger variability in male scores in certain areas compared to female scores, which results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution. The difference is between mere correlation and the causal relationship indicated by which results in. Again, we will need a reliable secondary source saying this explicitly and the current source does not do so.
 * 5) The clause I adapted to read while boys are over-represented among the very best and very worst performers refers to the unambiguous results of one study of one domain of cognition. That's quite different from the more general statement that appears in the lead. I'm not sure that this single study belongs in the article at all, per what's been discussed above (and indeed, advocated by yourself), but as long as it does remain we need to take care to phrase it appropriately.
 * 6) I think "indicated" is fine. The more I look into this issue, however, and the rather paltry empirical support for the variability hypothesis with regard to human intelligence, I'm thinking I may end up challenging whether that sentence does belong in the lead at all. But I'm not yet ready to commit to that position. Generalrelative (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think where we mainly disagree is on our understanding of original research (and how things can be summarized). The Wikipedia meaning says it's about adding material for which no reliable, published resource exists. It says the resource could be anywhere and that as long as a resource exists for something, then it's not original research just because it lacks a citation.
 * What I've been trying to convey in our discussion is that the hypothesis, in terms of intelligence, has always been about larger variability in males resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution. Let's look at a resource from the 1990s just as a reference point for how long this has been a core piece of the hypothesis and therefore isn't original research. "Women, Men, & Gender: Ongoing Debates" states that "in statistical terms, the hypothesis says that the variance (or standard deviation) for males is larger than the variance for females. This result would be -- even in the absence of an average gender difference -- a greater number of males at the high end of the distribution and also at the low end." The resource is from 1997. It says "result would be." Now, if a person wanted to argue that this definition isn't about intelligence, that's easy to disprove because of the next line in the resource that says how the hypothesis came to be, and because of the paragraph about mathematics that follows. The hypothesis is about the claimed various ways that males are in both the high end and low end of the distribution because of their variability.
 * If we travel ahead to 2021, another resource says the same about the hypothesis in terms of intelligence. "The Psychology of Sex and Gender" says the hypothesis is "The prediction that men show more variability than women in their distributions of scores on cognitive performance measures, leading them to be overrepresented in the very bottom and very top of score distributions." Instead of "result would be", it says "leading to." On the next same page, it explains this again, but in a different way.
 * As for the lead, I support a well-rounded lead. I mean a lead that does a good job at summarizing the article. So I think the variability portion should remain there. As you can see, I've proved a 2021 resource that explains what the hypothesis is and says what research supports it. It also offers more analysis on the topic than that. GBFEE (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is denying that the variability hypothesis is about men being over-represented at the top and bottom of the spectrum of cognitive performance measures. What I'm not sure about is whether the evidence supporting this hypothesis outweighs the evidence against it, and my suspicion is borne out by the ref you've provided here rather than allayed by it. If other reliable secondary sources show a similar trend of giving roughly equal weight to the evidence for and against this hypothesis then so should we, and our lead should ultimately reflect that. As of right now the lead only mentions studies which support the hypothesis. Generalrelative (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You challenged "results in." I started this discussion because I'm saying "results in" is a part of the hypothesis. Undoubtedly so. I provided an old resource and a new resource elucidating that. Whether it's in the lead or not isn't the main issue of this discussion, but I support what WP:LEAD says. GBFEE (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, I stated that "results in" was not in the cited source and it's not. Now you've provided a different source, which is great. Gold star for you. We should use that source when discussing the hypothesis in the article. But what the source you've provided also shows is that greater male variability in cognitive ability is far from settled science and therefore the article needs to be revised to reflect this. Generalrelative (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase: You said, "Cut the phrase '...which results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution' from both the lead and the body. After examining the source it seems that this is WP:OR." I'm saying it was never original research because "The Wikipedia meaning says it's about adding material for which no reliable, published resource exists. It says the resource could be anywhere and that as long as a resource exists for something, then it's not original research just because it lacks a citation." You also wanted a resource that directly says "results in" or something synonymous for it. I view that as having challenged "results in." We can quibble about words and meanings as far as what we wanted to convey, but that's time-wasting. I agree that the resource I've provided also shows that greater male variability in cognitive ability is far from settled science. I've said from the beginning that it's controversial and a lot of debate surrounds it. As for "therefore the article needs to be revised to reflect this", how does the article not already do that in the variability section? Thanks for the gold star. GBFEE (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good edit. Anything more you think should be done with the section? GBFEE (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Hopefully my edits answered your questions. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They did. If there's more to be done with the section, I'm sure we can work it out. GBFEE (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Video games
Generalrelative did a rvt on changes I made to information about video games. They said, "The previous wording made the logical relation between the sentences in this paragraph clearer. The recent good faith edit is therefore not an improvement."

The "logical relation" positioning that Generalrelative went back to is not superior. It's not more logical to say "Males tend to prefer genres of physical games such as action games. Females tend to prefer more traditional games such as puzzles.", and then to say "The action video games (e.g. First-person shooters) studied in this context are currently not preferred by female players." The sentence "Males tend to prefer genres of physical games such as action games." is already there. Why are we then saying "The action video games (e.g. First-person shooters) studied in this context are currently not preferred by female players."? That's not more logical. That's repetitive. Furthermore, the sentence about the puzzles gives the impression that puzzles are the video games women prefer, which doesn't match what's at Women and video games. What puzzle video games? Why is "studied in this context" used? How does it help? Why is "currently" there? Italics were also misused. When Acates07 added some of this yesterday, I knew I would change it. But first, I wanted to ask about the editor. GBFEE (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

When I say "which doesn't match what's at Women and video games", I don't mean the one table there based on one study. I mean the paragraphs there about women and preferring in-game communication or action-adventure games. In other words, games based more in social foundation, which are varied. Summarizing women's video game preference as "more traditional games such as puzzles" does a disservice to those coming to read information about this topic. I was on my way to summarizing things in a more appropriate way with appropriate resources, but then the rvt happened. GBFEE (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I do certainly think the phrasing here could be significantly improved, and I endorse both of the subsequent edits made by GBFEE after my revert. That said, I don't really understand what GBFEE is arguing here, so it's difficult for me to know how to respond. The main reason I reverted was because I felt it was necessary to keep the final sentence of the paragraph focused on the study, i.e. the reason we're talking about video games in the first place. Ending by saying males tend to prefer x type of video game; females tend to prefer y type, as GBFEE had left things, is simply not good paragraph structure and less encyclopedic overall. Generalrelative (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I've now offered my own edit. Hopefully this resolves both of our concerns, but if not feel free to continue the WP:BRD cycle. Generalrelative (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The most recent phrasing by Generalrelative is only an improvement for removing the repetitiveness. It's much shorter, but it no longer mentions that males prefer action video games (although this may be because "less preferred by female players" may be enough to convey "males prefer these games"). It mentions females only, and it still says "more traditional games such as puzzles", which is not a sufficient summary. As I don't really understand what Generalrelative is arguing or why they think this edit is an improvement, or is a good paragraph structure and more encyclopedic overall, I will improve it later on. As the holidays are here and I am laboring on other articles, I don't know when "later on" will be. But several parts of the article need work, and it's always important not to limit ourselves to one study's report unless that's all we have and we are careful. Here, there's more research on this topic. I appreciate Generalrelative for attempting something. GBFEE (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I may suggest that further discussion around improving this section should begin with clarification of each proponents positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:7601:7D57:A540:5788:BE1D:D70B (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

My recent change to the lead sentence of the no or inconclusive sex differences section
In regards to recent debate in the editing history I wanted to clear some misconceptions I may have caused. In making my edit I did not want to give off the impression that I meant the section focused on “no differences in intelligence” but rather no difference in general intelligence. I also wanted to clarify my personal confusion on the original sentence. I am a bit confused as to the statement that most studies find either a tiny male advantage or no differences because that’s almost a position of inconclusiveness entirely for what appears to be no meaningful differences overall as presented by the two sources listed just after. I could be understanding wrong, but perhaps it would be best to put this in the differences section above it saying something like “most studies that find differences in general intelligence report a minor advantage for males” and then also list the caveats general relative mentioned. I’m not super great at Wikipedia technical stuff but I want to help if I can so thanks for discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:7601:7D57:DD91:836C:F5F3:FF35 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Restoring a study
Generalrelative, why have you added back a single study after I removed it and editors have been pretty good about keeping single studies out of this article per the scholarly advice and medical guidance? Crossroads, for example, has repeatedly done this. What makes this study exceptional enough to include? How many others are we going to allow and why? When you allow this, it doesn't make it easy to keep other such material out of the article. GBFEE (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Cut again.. GBFEE (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I'd forgotten the local consensus on this page to avoid individual studies entirely. In any case this edit encouraged me to take a deeper look at the article and work through some existing problems. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's more than just a local consensus. It's how articles like these usually operate to avoid undue material and such. And I haven't read any discussions in this talk page's history that say that individual studies need to be avoided entirely. There's been discussion to avoid primary resources and only report on single studies if tertiary or secondary resources have reported on them in a direction that makes them due.
 * You also cut, "All or most of the major tests commonly used to measure intelligence have been constructed so that there are no overall score differences between males and females." You cut it as an "editorializing comment". But it's in the resource. Do you think it was reported in a way different than what the resource means? GBFEE (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I do think that the sentence in question misrepresented the cited source because it made it seem as though gender parity in intelligence were an artifact constructed by researchers rather than a finding of empirical research. The author Diane F. Halpern clearly believes that it is the latter: there are many reasons to conclude that, on average, there are no differences between females and males in general intelligence and Any claim for the superiority of one sex or the other based on measures that were standardized to eliminate any possible sex difference is specious and may be more reflective of a particular political agenda than carefully executed research or critical thought. I would be happy to reintroduce some version of that sentence which cleared up the ambiguity however, and perhaps also unpacked Halpern's actual point. Generalrelative (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

A 2012 review and "sometimes found to perform better" and "on some tests of" language.
Generalrelative, you moved a paragraph that references a 2012 review. The language for it reporting on what most of the tests showed is in the past tense because it's specifically about what that review found. You moved it to a different section and transformed the language to be general rather than about the review's findings. You also changed "For example, they found female subjects performed better on verbal abilities while males performed better on visuospatial abilities." to "For example, female subjects are sometimes found to perform better on verbal abilities while males performed better on visuospatial abilities." Why did you do this? Another thing is that open-ended words such as "sometimes found" in this case are contradicted by sentences and resources in the "reading and verbal skills" and "spatial ability" sections. These are typical findings.

For information from "Women in Science and Mathematics: Gender Similarities in Abilities and Sociocultural Forces", you changed "For verbal fluency, females have been specifically found to perform slightly better in vocabulary and reading comprehension and significantly higher in speech production and essay writing." to "For verbal fluency, females have been specifically found to perform slightly better on some tests of vocabulary and reading comprehension and significantly higher in speech production and essay writing." and "Males have been specifically found to perform better on spatial visualization, spatial perception, and mental rotation." to "Males have been specifically found to perform better on some tests of spatial visualization, spatial perception, and mental rotation." Again, open-ended words such as "on some tests of" are contradicted by sentences and resources in the "reading and verbal skills" and "spatial ability" sections. These are typical findings.

You also removed "Researchers had then recommended that general models such as fluid and crystallized intelligence be divided into verbal, perceptual and visuospatial domains of g; this is because, as this model is applied, females excel at verbal and perceptual tasks while males excel on visuospatial tasks, thus evening out the sex differences on IQ tests." And I'm not sure why. GBFEE (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes I did rewrite that language to be about the topic rather than simply about the reviews finding, consistent with e.g. WP:YESPOV which enjoins us to Avoid stating facts as opinions. That review presents a "typical finding", as you say.
 * 2) The phrase "are sometimes found" is necessary to avoid the false impression that these findings are universal or applicable to all tests. None of the reliable sources write about this as if they were and therefore neither should we. If this contradicts other language in the article then that language should be fixed as well.
 * 3) Same rationale wrt "on some tests of". This is how scientists who publish reliable sources talk.
 * 4) The sentence beginning "Researchers had then recommended..." did not inform the reader about the topic. It's not even clear to me what information this sentence was intended to convey. If I had to guess, it seems to be saying that scientists (all of them?) made a recommendation (to whom?) to switch from the fluid / crystallized model of intelligence to one defined by a tripartite division between verbal, perceptual and visuospatial simply because women (all of them?) excel at verbal and men (all of them?) at visiospacial tasks. But this sentence actually tells us nothing about why the latter would motivate the former –– leaving aside the potentially misleading ambiguities noted in my parenthetical questions and the confusing grammar of the "had then" construction. Further, the idea that scientists have moved beyond the fluid / crystalized model of intelligence is explicitly contradicted by the cited source. Generalrelative (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that WP:YESPOV allows us to take a 2012 review and use it in the way that you did. It wasn't presented as an opinion in the format it was in previously. It was presented in suitable context. WP:YESPOV doesn't allow us to add our own original research of "are sometimes found to perform". At, you argued against including information because the words "results in" were not in the cited resource. You argued that it was against the original research policy because those words were not in the cited resource. So how, if we take that view of original research (which I disagreed with in that discussion), is it not also original research to add the words "are sometimes found to perform" and "on some tests of" when they aren't in the resources?
 * You say "Same rationale wrt 'on some tests of'. This is how scientists who publish reliable sources talk." They do sometimes say "on tests of" and "on tests of some". But, regardless, Wikipedia sticks to what the resources say. It's unusual for resources to say "are sometimes found to perform" and "on some tests of" when saying that "female subjects performed better on verbal abilities while males performed better on visuospatial abilities", "females have been specifically found to perform slightly better in vocabulary and reading comprehension and significantly higher in speech production and essay writing." and "Males have been specifically found to perform better on spatial visualization, spatial perception, and mental rotation." It's unusual for them to use such open-ended words for these findings because these are the consistent findings in the research. They are the few sex differences in intelligence that are more consistent than others. For verbal ability, it's more common to see scientists say "small to moderate" in favor of girls and women. Saying that we should use watered down language not found in the resources "to avoid the false impression that these findings are universal or applicable to all tests" can apply to many different things in research where consistent findings have been observed.
 * But let's entertain both "consistent findings" and "universal findings". We referenced "The Psychology of Sex and Gender", 2021, before. For this topic specifically, it says, "In one meta-analysis, Hyde and Linn (1988) reported a small sex difference favoring girls and women for verbal fluency (d=-0.33). More recent studies reveal similar effect sizes (d= -0.24 and -0.45; Weiss, Kemmier, Deisenhammer, Fleischhacker, & Delazer, 2003) and show that the female advantage in verbal fluency is present across ages and sexual orientations (Mayor et al., 2007). Although the earliest meta-analysis of reading comprehension found no overall sex difference (d=-0.03; Hyde & Linn, 1988), more recent studies consistently find a reading advantage for girls." The resource wants us to take note of changes with children's age and national gender equality.
 * The Psychology of Sex and Gender" (this time a 2018 version) also says, "The male advantage in mental rotation appears in infancy (P. C. Quinn & Liben, 2014) and emerges consistently across cultures. ... Men exceeded women in mental rotation ability in every country, with larger sex differences in countries with greater gender equality and economic development. ... Boys and men also tend to perform better on tasks of movement perception, such as judging velocity (Law, Pellegrino, & Hunt, 1993) or estimating when a moving target will reach a certain point (Schiff & Oldak, 1990)."
 * "Families in Context: Sociological Perspectives", 2015, states, "Researchers have generally found that women score higher than do men on tests of verbal ability, while men do better on tests of math and visual-spatial ability. The differences are small but consistent across cultures.
 * Evolutionary psychology is also featured of this topic. "The SAGE Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology", 2020, states, "Women consistently score higher than men on tests of verbal ability, as well as on tests involving remembering the locations of objects, whereas men consistently score higher on tests of spatial ability, route finding, maze running, and the mental rotation of objects. These differences have been found throughout the entire range of human societies and in many other mammalian species."
 * Of course, I didn't need to list these resources because there are already multiple resources in the article that say that women tend to have better verbal/reading abilities and men tend to be better at mental rotation, assessing horizontality and verticality, and at spatial memory (with the exception of spatial location memory). GBFEE (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:TEXTWALL, and if necessary feel free to solicit outside opinions. I believe that I have already addressed your concerns and have no interest in going around in circles about it. Generalrelative (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:TEXTWALL essay says, "Not all long posts are walls of text; some can be nuanced and thoughtful." Exactly what my long post citing the research is. GBFEE (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That's your response to resources showing your assertions to be incorrect? Maybe I should have used that response for long posts you've made that served no real purpose except for filibustering. I notice that you often make long posts, but it appears that you somehow consider yours superior to others. Yours are the exceptions? Someone makes a long post that you don't like? You refer to WP:TEXTWALL. You like it? No reference to WP:TEXTWALL. I will feel free to solicit outside opinions. Crossroads is the only other main watcher of the article, it seems. If he has no response, I'll move on from there. GBFEE (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk pages are not an appropriate place to speculate on the imagined motivations of other editors. I encourage you to strike these inappropriate remarks –– or feel free to revert along with this response. Generalrelative (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of it as speculation. I considered it an observation. You've repeatedly ignored the length of EvgFakka's very long posts and you were never one of the multiple editors asking that editor to not add primary resources or explain to him why he shouldn't use them, especially in the way he uses them. At, an editor made very long posts, and you said nothing to that editor about WP:TEXTWALL. You let the editor speak and agreed with their final point. I did indicate to that editor that their posts were very long, but I was polite about it, saying, "Your second post is way too long. So per Wikipedia guidance, please be more concise." We politely continued to discuss multiple points freely in more digestable posts. I don't think that my long post in this section is so long that you needed to reply to it with an uncivil reference to WP:TEXTWALL. Even if it were, there was no reason for you to be dismissive of it, particularly in light of what the resources say. I feel that you have been unnecessarily antagonistic toward me since I showed up at this article. You even warned me about a dummy edit when you recently did the same thing. The difference is that I linked a word and didn't say "dummy edit" in my edit summary, but it was supposed to serve as one.
 * Everything considered, however, I apologize for offending you. I also prefer that we move on. For the issue right now, I don't even think I need to "solicit outside opinions". I just need to sticks to what the resources say. But I'll wait. GBFEE (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have given you no indication that I am offended, and I suggest that in the future you avoid giving non-apology apologies. Nothing else here merits a response. Generalrelative (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Kind of how I gave no indication that I was offended by your "Gold star for you" comment that resembled "Want a cookie?" back in September 2021. I suggest you be more careful with such comments in the future. Not everyone will take them in stride like me and say "thank you". Nothing else here merits a response, indeed. So, from here on, I'll do what I always do and stick to what the resources say, removing things that the resources don't support. "Failed verifications", to use your words. Have a good evening. GBFEE (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There's been a lot of edits in the article and it's hard to compare it all and line it up with the discussion and with what agreements, if any, have been reached so far. So, GBFEE, which specific text would you propose changing or restoring to an earlier state regarding this version, current as of me asking this question? No need to repeat rationale if already given. Crossroads -talk- 00:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Crossroads. For this edit, I propose changing the qualifying language I mentioned in my first post of this section back to the original language per sticking to what the resources say and the arguments I made and resources I listed in this post. I'll think about the review thing later. GBFEE (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Crossroads, the issue with the previous version of the sentence in question was that it gave the reader the false impression that gender differences are consistent across all studies and all ability tests. The cited source makes clear that findings from gender differences research are notoriously inconsistent across studies. For example, in the meta-analysis of gender differences in mathematics performance discussed later in this paper, 51% of the studies showed males scoring higher, 6% showed exactly no difference between males and females, and 43% showed females scoring higher. This is just one example but an illustrative one. Simply saying "men are better at X, women are better at Y" is a misleading oversimplification of the literature, and my recent edits were aimed at addressing this. Generalrelative (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Crossroads, do you see "sometimes found to perform better" and "on some tests of" language in the resources? I do not. Now contrast the altered wording with information such as "The Psychology of Sex and Gender" saying, "The male advantage in mental rotation appears in infancy (P. C. Quinn & Liben, 2014) and emerges consistently across cultures. ... Men exceeded women in mental rotation ability in every country, with larger sex differences in countries with greater gender equality and economic development. ... Boys and men also tend to perform better on tasks of movement perception, such as judging velocity (Law, Pellegrino, & Hunt, 1993) or estimating when a moving target will reach a certain point (Schiff & Oldak, 1990)." You can also see what other resources in the "reading and verbal skills" and "spatial ability" sections say. You'll see that these resources do not oversimplify this information. They offer caveats, etc., while pointing out what the consistent and less consistent findings are. When something is inconsistent, or a "small" or "small to moderate" difference, the resources will say this. The finding of the male advantage in mental rotation, for example, is not inconsistent. GBFEE (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * GBFEE, you've clearly misunderstood my point. I haven't argued that the sources oversimplify the science; I've argued that the previous version of the article did so, which was why I corrected it. Further, now that you've pinged in a third party, please refrain from piling on. We've each said our piece. Let's allow Crossroads –– or anyone else who happens by –– to come to their own conclusions. Generalrelative (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And you've misunderstood my point, which is that it's a consistent finding that women tend to have better verbal/reading abilities and men tend to be better at mental rotation, assessing horizontality and verticality, and at spatial memory (with the exception of spatial location memory). Multiple reliable academic resources say this. The previous sentence saying "For example, they found female subjects performed better on verbal abilities while males performed better on visuospatial abilities." was the 2012 review reporting on what studies found. It was not used to generally say "female subjects perform better on verbal abilities". But the research does show this, even though it's small to moderate for certain areas. The sentence saying "For verbal fluency, females have been specifically found to perform slightly better in vocabulary and reading comprehension and significantly higher in speech production and essay writing." uses the words "slightly better", which addresses the small to moderate caveat pointed out in resources. And "Males have been specifically found to perform better on spatial visualization, spatial perception, and mental rotation." is not oversimplifying the science. That just a usual finding, as supported by "The Psychology of Sex and Gender" resource. So to add "sometimes found to perform better" and "on some tests of" language, especially for something as well-supported as the male advantage in mental rotation, is challenging the literature. That's the reality, and the fact that the language you used is not in the resources. Attempting to clear things up for Crossroads after your characterization of things isn't "piling on". But you're correct that we've said our piece. GBFEE (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that the WP:BLUDGEONing of this thread has not stopped, I believe that we're beyond what can reasonably be expected of a single third party to arbitrate. Crossroads, I do regard you as a neutral voice but I'm not comfortable asking you to sort through this level of contention, which involves both content and behavioral issues. I've therefore invited others at WP:NPOVN to join this discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting stopped about two hours ago. All you had to do was wait for Crossroads to reply. Instead, we have another uncivil, misleading post by you here and at WP:NPOVN. Not too surprising. WP:BLUDGEON, yet another essay, says, "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided." Labeling my replies in such a way will not distract from what is and is not in the resources. GBFEE (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this is a behavioral issue, please refer to my reply on your user talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would post my own opinions of your behavioral issues on your talk page, but I'll refrain. GBFEE (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I never know when to reply at the noticeboard or when to reply at the talk page in question. Either way, I have left a response at NPOVN. Endwise (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I largely agree with your points (for ease of reference, here is the diff). It seems as far as I can tell that the hedging language is not found in the source when it is discussing these specific findings and that rather, it presents them more directly. Therefore, we should present them more like the source does. A nonspecific point from elsewhere in the source about inconsistency between studies, which then immediately jumps into mathematical ability, something not in this disputed paragraph, does not seem necessarily relevant, as we don't know they are talking about those specific areas when they say that, rather than other ones. GBFEE brought up other sources which they may want to add to support the point. If other similarly weighty sources dispute the consistency of these specific findings, then presenting both claims with attribution may be necessary, but for now it does not seem disputed. Crossroads -talk- 05:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. That's what I've been saying. GBFEE (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If all you want to change is the qualifying language (and introduce an awkward past tense?) in those couple of sentences here, I'm not going to die on that hill. However, you should be aware that there are certainly RS which contradict such definitive statements. Here for instance is what it says directly after the portion that GBFEE quoted from this source above: However, verbal abilities are not a unitary construct, and the size of the difference depends on the area being measured (e.g. vocabulary, verbal fluency, reading, writing, and verbal reasoning). As shown in table 7.2, when sex differences do emerge, they are small to moderate and tend to favor women and girls. My emphasis added. You reverted my language "females have been specifically found to perform slightly better on some tests of vocabulary" back to the more definitive "females have been specifically found to perform slightly better in vocabulary" but you should be aware that, according to this same source: By later childhood, however, sex differences in vocabulary generally disappear. So that sentence is now flatly misleading once again. In any case, though, I'll happily drop the stick if other good-faith editors really do see things differently. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a response to this at the noticeboard. GBFEE (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While I'm not sure the prior version was hedged in the most appropriate way, the problem I have with this version is the two, unqualified have been found claims - these are given in wikivoice rather than attributed, but our article cites sources disputing, or offering caveats and disclaimers for, these claims. In this situation, the GBFEE/Crossroads preferred text violates WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest these claims be rephrased? Generalrelative (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The lazy answer would be "The review found", or something similar. I currently lack the energy to produce a better answer. :) Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Generalrelative (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikivoice for the 2012 review isn't my preference, which I explained in the first paragraph of this section. It's also why I said at the noticeboard, "In any case, what another resource says is no reason to use qualifiers for what a 2012 review says when those qualifiers aren't in the resource. Adding contextual information from different references, which is an acceptable option, is different than changing the wording for a reference to include qualifiers that alter its finding." Findings that are well-supported by the research, such as male mental rotation ability, should be in wikivoice, however. And this particular ability is already detailed in the spatial ability section, albeit with the words "meta-studies show" to begin the sentence. It's not only meta-studies that show this. GBFEE (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The source from 2012 is written carefully in a nuanced way. Any discussion of the conclusions of the source should reflect this. If we give the impression that the source gives definitive conclusions about sex differences in intelligence when in fact it gives greatly qualified conclusions, then we are violating WP:NOR. A word such as "some" might be used when paraphrasing the source (whether or not the source uses that word), if the source is saying that certain studies (and not others) supported some conclusion. Similarly, the source emphasizes social and environmental effects that have been documented in other studies. An accurate paraphasing of the source has to include this context. We should not over-simplify what the source says. NightHeron (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Brain
It's my understanding that brain volume - for a (biological) species - correlates with intelligence. Granted, cross-species intelligence is different than human intelligence, but shouldn't this be mentioned? Also, if you use the equation which fits body mass to brain volume, and you use the hmmm I think it was the mammalian parameter but could have been for primates...the average (human) female has a larger brain than the average male when adjusted for body mass. The article makes the correct claim that the (average) male's brain is larger- but when adjusted for body mass, females have larger brains.FWIW174.131.48.89 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You need a source. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Men have a brain volume 10% larger than women on average. Brain volume within sexes (and between species) being related to intelligence sexes does not imply that brain volume between sexes is related to intelligence. BooleanQuackery (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Disputed content
is invited to explain the content they wish to add here and persuade others before re-adding, as required by WP:ONUS. My objection to this content is that it uncritically cites WP:PROFRINGE author Richard Lynn, who is known for making wild claims based on extremely dubious methodology. has objected that this content is inappropriate because we should be citing academic review articles per WP:SOURCETYPES. Both of these objections should be addressed here, and consensus reached, before the content is re-added. Generalrelative (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If Professor Lynn is not credible why is he in this article next to reference 14 to 15 ?
 * Why is Professor Lynn not credible ?
 * You are citing articles that are based on the same meta analysis that found out that men on average have 5 IQ points more globally.


 * Therefore I assume you play professor here and just accept studies that have results that you prefer ?


 * I do not claim to know the truth, but I find that different opinions could be respected on wikipedia.
 * I could elaborate, why I think you are maybe misinterpreting those references 14 and 15, and do some more research, but honestly I would prefer to be able to have the time for a text that even Feminists could may be tolerate, since the tone is obvious biased here ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Flow (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Richard Lynn is not a professor. He had his emeritus status stripped from him. He is a former professor.
 * 2) Richard Lynn is not credible for all the reasons stated in the article Richard Lynn –– and more importantly, all the reliable sources upon which that article is based.
 * 3) I am not aware of any credible source which claims that men on average have 5 IQ points more globally.
 * 4) Assuming good faith is a requirement here. If you persist in assuming bad faith (e.g. you play professor here and just accept studies that have results that you prefer) you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This policy is followed especially closely in topics for which discretionary sanctions exist, such as this one.
 * 5) Please refer to our core policy of neutrality for how we handle different opinions, in particular the section on false balance.
 * 6) I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your final point (there appears to be an issue with English-language competency here), nor what Feminists have to do with it.
 * Generalrelative (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Generalrelative I should have done better research that was my mistake. I thought that this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16248939/ explains a not 5% difference but 4.5% or so, because the mean is affacted by a larger deviation in cognitive abilities of men. I am done with this, it is not important for me. I am sorry, for guessing that there are facts that count in that research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Flow (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sex difference and IQ
As the article on Intelligence Quotient says 'Currently, most IQ tests, including popular batteries such as the WAIS and the WISC-R, are constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males.' This makes most references in the article to IQ as opposed to just intelligence or g factor or some other such thing in relation to sex rather meaningless despite some prestigious journals referring to them together. NadVolum (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That is a very interesting point. I followed one of the references given for that claim, and indeed, the claim is found in http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFiles/IQ_Neisser2.pdf, PDF page 15, right at the start of the "Sex Differences" section.
 * However, "no overall score differences" likely, in my understanding, means no differences in mean IQ scores. You could still find differences in, e.g., variance. Does anyone have more references on this which elaborate a bit more on this issue?? 2A01:C22:85E1:6500:85C7:F294:4D7A:FEBC (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable article
Literature is very old, and very biased. Current scholarship on sexual differences in IQ relates variations in cognitive habilities not to "culture" (whatever that may mean in biology, basically nothing testable) but to a mix of environmental and genetic factor. Cognitive habilities are also embedded and therefore subject to sexual dimorphism. 86.6.148.125 (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Article makes the bold claim at the beginning that "It is now recognized that there are no significant sex differences in general intelligence", while using a source where, if actually read, clearly outlines that while no differences exist amongst children, there's a preponderance of data data that seems to suggest a possible difference amongst adults. AndRueM (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not an accurate assessment of the literature. There are three sources given for that claim in the lead, and many more could be provided to support it. Claims of significant differences in general intelligence between the sexes are only coming from a few fringe voices at the extreme margins of academia. Generalrelative (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not an accurate assessment of the literature. Found within:
 * "Analyses of the adult standardization samples of the WAIS-III and WAIS-R generally show a small difference in IQ in favor of men. The results are consistent across countries, running from two to three IQ points in the United States and Canada45 (in deviation units, d = .19) to four points (d = .27) in China and Japan.46 These results are also close to the results obtained in earlier studies, showing consistency in time.47 There is a somewhat similar picture when we look at children's data. IQ differences are on the order of one to two points in favor of boys in both the US and the Netherlands.48"
 * "A major point in Lynn's argument is that the difference in RPM scores shifts toward a male superiority from childhood to adolescence. Statistically, this would amount to an age x sex interaction. In seven of the eight studies of children and adolescents in which a comparison between the age nine to ten and age fifteen to sixteen scores could be made, there was a shift toward better male performance with increasing age."
 * Positing the difference in general intelligence between the sexes as coming from fringe literature is an overly dismissive take. Meta-analyses of school-aged children show parity. Meta-analyses of adults all generally show a male advantage. That is why this article decided to cite the sources using children, and avoided tackling any of the controversial meat of literature. AndRueM (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
Article begins with a definitive claim that "It is now recognized that there are no significant sex differences in general intelligence". Citing a source that has the following information:

"Analyses of the adult standardization samples of the WAIS-III and WAIS-R generally show a small difference in IQ in favor of men. The results are consistent across countries, running from two to three IQ points in the United States and Canada45 (in deviation units, d = .19) to four points (d = .27) in China and Japan.46 These results are also close to the results obtained in earlier studies, showing consistency in time.47 There is a somewhat similar picture when we look at children's data. IQ differences are on the order of one to two points in favor of boys in both the US and the Netherlands.48"

"A major point in Lynn's argument is that the difference in RPM scores shifts toward a male superiority from childhood to adolescence. Statistically, this would amount to an age x sex interaction. In seven of the eight studies of children and adolescents in which a comparison between the age nine to ten and age fifteen to sixteen scores could be made, there was a shift toward better male performance with increasing age."

This type of language continues throughout the article. Where claims towards males are treated as theories and suggestions while claims of non-difference are treated as factual. Both should be treated with the same verbage. See the underlined portions below:

"It has also been hypothesized that there is slightly higher variability in male scores in certain areas compared to female scores, leading to males' being over-represented at the top and bottom extremes of the distribution, though the evidence for this hypothesis is inconclusive "

According to psychologist Diane Halpern, "there are both differences and similarities in the cognitive abilities of women and men, but there is no data-based rationale to support the idea that either is the smarter or superior sex.

The usage of this quote is clearly biased.

Furthermore, there is very generous interpretations of studies listed, whereby I had to correct "men and women" to "male and female school-aged children", and correct wording for the variability hypothesis for seeming more equal when the cited meta-analysis had two studies and they both showed a greater average variance for men, but determined the difference to be inconclusive because not all groups showed the same result within one of the studies.

There is far too prevalent bias on this page given the scientific literature. Especially given a common contributor considers data that shows the alternate point of view as "fringe". AndRueM (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note that this issue has been brought to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm formerly inviting Anachronist to join the discussion to explain disagreement to the edits made concerning the male variability hypothesis and more specifically their removal of the NPOV tag.
 * The phrasing was adjusted by the user here
 * This phrasing seems to suggest that their is an equivalent amount of data in support of and against the male variability hypothesis. My phrasing was introduced to demonstrate an imbalance in the amount of support on one side versus the others and correctly articulate what the sources cited state. There is more data in support of the male variability hypothesis, which exists not only in humans but animals as well
 * The following is noted in the meta-analysis citation to oppose the theory. "Sixth, do males display greater variance in scores and, if so, by how much? The overall variance ratio in Study 1 was 1.07. That is, males displayed a somewhat larger variance, but the VR was not far from 1.0 or equal variances. In Study 2, the average variance ratio was 1.09, again not far from 1.0. In addition, the NELS:88 data (Table 3) show several VR's that are < 1.0, indicating that greater male variability is not ubiquitous. Variance ratios less than 1.0 have also been found in some national and international data sets (Hyde et al, 2008; Hyde & Mertz, 2009)."
 * The two studies utilized in their analysis both were in support of the hypothesis; look at the numbers. For some reason the authors chose to include information irrelevant to the meta-analysis to push some idea that greater male variance does not exist, and then this issue is continued to be pushed whereby wikipedia contributors decide to use this source as a refutation of the male variability hypothesis when its actual analysis does the opposite.
 * I have additionally pulled the following from "The psychology of sex and gender", reference 6 used in the variance section to discount the theory. "In support of the greater male variability hypothesis, men are disproportionately represented at both ends of cognitive ability distributions (Bergold, Wendt, Kasper, & Steinmayr, 2017; Hyde et al., 2008). This means that the top scorers on many cognitive tests are more likely to be men than women, but so are the lowest scorers. As early as the 19th century, researchers noted the disproportionate numbers of men in homes for the intellectually challenged (H. Ellis, 1894). Similarly, boys are more likely than girls to receive diagnoses of learning disabilities and developmental disorders, such as dyslexia (J. M. Quinn & Wagner, 2015), autism spectrum disorders (Volkmar, Szatmari, & Sparrow, 1993), and Down syndrome (Verma & Huq, 1987)".
 * To me, the fence-sitting stance that seems to be prioritized on this page is a very generous interpretation and only will serve to mislead the audience from the evidence in the actual sources. AndRueM (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I have checked the 2012 review, Jensen's 1998 study, and the 2022 meta-analysis. All of these studies are about children, and yet this article continues to broadly paint this as applicable to adults.
 * The mere fact that this article uses so many studies with children, and so brazenly claims that there is no significant difference between men and women should be alarming. This is coupled with the outright dismissal of the meta-analytic studies on adults demonstrating a male advantage, and an unsurprising inability to draw up comparable studies on adults that show insignificance.
 * Given that male and female intelligence ought be the same and that current political positions are directed in that way as well, we should see sufficient data that can paint the opposition as clearly "fringe". Editors should ask then, why are we continuing to use children studies.
 * I urge editors to maintain true neutrality and look at the data and make an honest conclusion regardless of personal moral convictions. AndRueM (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To me, this comes across not as a NPOV dispute, but nipicking about grammar.
 * Here's the sentence as it stands now, which also happens to be my most recent edit, which reverted AndRueM's change:
 * Some studies have suggested that there may be more variability in cognitive ability among males than among females, but others have contradicted this, or presented evidence that differential variability is culturally rather than biologically determined..
 * Here's the previous revision, again with the changes bolded:
 * A number of studies have suggested that there is more variability in cognitive ability among males than females, but a few others have contradicted this, or presented evidence that differential variability may be culturally rather than biologically determined.
 * Both versions are weasel-worded. Both say essentially the same thing, using sloppy language like "may be". Overall, I prefer the first version with "may be" changed to "is". ~Anachronist (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mistakenly removed the NPOV tag. If so, please revert that change, as the comments you've made have no relation to the various other points I made in the dispute. Otherwise, would you explain your reasoning for removing said tag?
 * Weasel-wording would imply both the before and after are equally misrepresented by the sources and equally aimed at misleading. I've described my reasoning for why the previous wording takes far more liberties with regards to the sources. Would kindly describe how you took this into account when justifying your decision? AndRueM (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have since read the Cambridge Handbook of the international psychology of women, which features Diane Halpern as an author, and have found it to be a refreshingly balanced take on the subject.
 * It fully discusses Lynn's developmental theory; it's strengths and shortcomings without dismissal, and concludes the sections with the following: "Even if we were to conclude that sex and gender differences in general (or specific) intelligence exist, it is important to keep in mind the overlap between distributions of scores for both sexes. The concept of overlap is depicted in Figure 10.2. As shown, the two groups presented differ in mean (average) intelligence, with Group2 having a higher mean (average score) than Group 1, but the average difference in this figure is small, and, depending on domain and task complexity, the difference may be too small to be practically significant."
 * In the section on variance it says the following:
 * "There is a “consensus of more than 50 years, that the only sex difference in IQ is a slightly greater variance among males” (Blinkhorn, 2005, p. 31).
 * "The excess of boys in the low ability end of the IQ scale cannot be attributed either to the positive mean difference favoring males (of course not) or to larger male standard deviation (because it is asymmetric). There has to be an additional factor especially relevant for male low ability;"
 * There is not a consensus that there is a male advantage, but they do showcase the evidence for it, and we should do so here as well, but not argue it as true or conclusive. However, the source is clear that the general consensus is greater variability. AndRueM (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Disputed Citation
GeneralRelative is invited to formerly explain their rationale for supporting the current citation of the following as adequate. "Other research has been published which contradicts this hypothesis, however, showing either equal variability between the sexes in some cultural contexts or else greater representation of females at the upper extreme of some measures of cognitive ability."

I have the following quotes from the literature cited.

"In support of the greater male variability hypothesis, men are disproportionately represented at both ends of cognitive ability distributions (Bergold, Wendt, Kasper, & Steinmayr, 2017; Hyde et al., 2008). This means that the top scorers on many cognitive tests are more likely to be men than women, but so are the lowest scorers. As early as the 19th century, researchers noted the disproportionate numbers of men in homes for the intellectually challenged (H. Ellis, 1894). Similarly, boys are more likely than girls to receive diagnoses of learning disabilities and developmental disorders, such as dyslexia (J. M. Quinn & Wagner, 2015), autism spectrum disorders (Volkmar, Szatmari, & Sparrow, 1993), and Down syndrome (Verma & Huq, 1987)"

The use of this literature as demonstrative of casting doubt on this hypothesis seems inadequate. AndRueM (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)