6 ms·

And what, specifically, would those differences be? The balance of the evidence, is that there are some biological differences in preferences. Both biological

And what, specifically, would those differences be? The balance of the evidence, is that there are some biological differences in preferences. Both biological and cultural factors are at play. As groups, women and men are about the same in terms of average IQ, however, men tend to have a higher population of the extreme outliers. (Both extremely smart men and extremely stupid men.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153857 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTWSoM1_6KM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTWSoM1_6KM

andrewprock 9y ago
Is there any evidence that this is biological, as opposed to cultural?
- stcredzero 9y ago
  In short, yes. You should look up the book which is cited in this video, and you should listen to the discussion of the prologue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw Since the human brain and its interaction with culture is very complicated, more research is needed. But a fair reading of what we have so far would seem to indicate: it's both. Beware of ideological just-so stories that make you feel good. Also, if it sounds messy and complicated, it sounds like actual biology and psychology.
  - andrewprock 9y ago
    It looks like there is only indirect evidence, and no direct evidence. In fact, the whole discussion smells far too much of "correlation means causation" to get anything useful out of it. There are some great weasel words like: "there is good evidence ... play a role ..." Without a hypothetical mechanism, this is all quite speculative.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Nothing to get your knickers in a bunch about, is what I'd say about it. (Note, that term can refer to golf pants.)
    - Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
      ok what about this "Sex differences in brain size and general intelligence (g)" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302975 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616...) "Abstract Utilizing MRI and cognitive tests data from the Human Connectome project (N = 900), sex differences in general intelligence (g) and molar brain characteristics were examined. Total brain volume, cortical surface area, and white and gray matter correlated 0.1–0.3 with g for both sexes, whereas cortical thickness and gray/white matter ratio showed less consistent associations with g. Males displayed higher scores on most of the brain characteristics, even after correcting for body size, and also scored approximately one fourth of a standard deviation higher on g. Mediation analyses and the Method of Correlated Vectors both indicated that the sex difference in g is mediated by general brain characteristics. Selecting a subsample of males and females who were matched on g further suggest that larger brains, on average, lead to higher g, whereas similar levels of g do not necessarily imply equal brain sizes."
      - andrewprock 9y ago
        I assume you are presenting this as another example of indirect correlational evidence, with no hypothetical mechanism.
        Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
        The study examined female and male brains, found that males on average had a higher general intelligence score and a higher standard deviation. The study also found that male brains had on average higher surface area and size even if you control for body size. The study found that brain size in both genders on average leads to a higher g. I don't understand how your criticism "indirect correlational evidence" applies to this study, could you maybe elaborate on how you would improve this study?

andrewprock 9y ago

Is there any evidence that this is biological, as opposed to cultural?

stcredzero 9y ago
In short, yes. You should look up the book which is cited in this video, and you should listen to the discussion of the prologue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw Since the human brain and its interaction with culture is very complicated, more research is needed. But a fair reading of what we have so far would seem to indicate: it's both. Beware of ideological just-so stories that make you feel good. Also, if it sounds messy and complicated, it sounds like actual biology and psychology.
- andrewprock 9y ago
  It looks like there is only indirect evidence, and no direct evidence. In fact, the whole discussion smells far too much of "correlation means causation" to get anything useful out of it. There are some great weasel words like: "there is good evidence ... play a role ..." Without a hypothetical mechanism, this is all quite speculative.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Nothing to get your knickers in a bunch about, is what I'd say about it. (Note, that term can refer to golf pants.)
  - Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
    ok what about this "Sex differences in brain size and general intelligence (g)" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302975 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616...) "Abstract Utilizing MRI and cognitive tests data from the Human Connectome project (N = 900), sex differences in general intelligence (g) and molar brain characteristics were examined. Total brain volume, cortical surface area, and white and gray matter correlated 0.1–0.3 with g for both sexes, whereas cortical thickness and gray/white matter ratio showed less consistent associations with g. Males displayed higher scores on most of the brain characteristics, even after correcting for body size, and also scored approximately one fourth of a standard deviation higher on g. Mediation analyses and the Method of Correlated Vectors both indicated that the sex difference in g is mediated by general brain characteristics. Selecting a subsample of males and females who were matched on g further suggest that larger brains, on average, lead to higher g, whereas similar levels of g do not necessarily imply equal brain sizes."
    - andrewprock 9y ago
      I assume you are presenting this as another example of indirect correlational evidence, with no hypothetical mechanism.
      - Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
        The study examined female and male brains, found that males on average had a higher general intelligence score and a higher standard deviation. The study also found that male brains had on average higher surface area and size even if you control for body size. The study found that brain size in both genders on average leads to a higher g. I don't understand how your criticism "indirect correlational evidence" applies to this study, could you maybe elaborate on how you would improve this study?