4 ms·

Also, one of the strongest predictions of working memory in all groups was gender, which may be an indicator that confounding factors haven't been broken down.

by xyzzyz 7y ago

Also, one of the strongest predictions of working memory in all groups was gender, which may be an indicator that confounding factors haven't been broken down. Only if you erroneously assume that the sex cannot be predictive of differences in working memory. We know it's not the case: there are sex differences in average scores in subtests (or in group factors). However, most results point in the direction of female advantage in short term memory. Jensen's 1998 book for example quotes Cohen's d between -0.2 and -0.3, favoring females.

jacobolus 7y ago
> Only if you erroneously assume ... The previous commenter made some qualified questioning speculation. Leaping to conclusions about what his or her unstated assumptions must have been and then calling them “erroneous” seems a bit hostile. * * * How does one tease out the difference between inherent biological differences vs. differences caused by a lifetime spent in the differing social/cultural environment facing boys vs. girls? How robust are working memory differences between sexes across time, across different countries, across different subcultural groups, etc.?
- lmm 7y ago
  > Leaping to conclusions about what his or her unstated assumptions must have been and then calling them “erroneous” seems a bit hostile. The original comment was leaping to the assumption that finding sex differences means there must be something wrong with the study/analysis. That's dangerously wrong.
  - pdpi 7y ago
    > Also, one of the strongest predictions of working memory in all groups was gender, which may be an indicator that confounding factors haven't been broken down. “May be an indicator”. Not quite the Olympic jumping-at-conclusions performance I’d expect from a “dangerously wrong” comment.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Leaping to conclusions about what his or her unstated assumptions must have been If you don’t assume that the subtest scores are the same across sexes, the “qualified questioning speculation” that there is something wrong with control variables makes no sense. How does one tease out the difference between inherent biological differences vs. differences caused by a lifetime spent in the differing social/cultural environment facing boys vs. girls? This kind of unentanglement is usually done through twin studies: you compare how well correlated are monozygotic vs dizygotic twins. Since it’s reasonable to assume that both monozygotic and dizygotic twins share the same or at least very similar environments, if the correlation between monozygotic twins on a given trait is greater than in dizygotic twins, it means that genetic causation plays a role, while if the correlation is the same, there it is likely no genetic causation. Of course, it’s a bit hard to find monozygotic twins of different sexes, but similar ideas are used in that case. The point is, we do have the tools to unentangle nature from nurture, and in general, all points in the direction of genetic causation when it comes to cognitive traits. I recommend reading the Jensen’s 1998 book I mentioned.
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    Twin studies don’t help you with this particular question. Beyond that, there are plenty of scholars who question the common interpretation of twin studies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study#Criticism > all points in the direction of genetic causation when it comes to cognitive traits To be precise, some evidence points in the direction that some variation in cognitive traits is “heritable”. It is obvious to everyone that there are substantial effects on cognitive traits due to malnutrition, disease, exposure to toxins, physical violence, persistent emotional trauma, and so on, as well as a substantial amount of variation that we currently don’t have explanations for (not to mention significant experimental noise and epistomological questions about the design and interpretation of the experiments). It is at least plausible that large-scale differences in the treatment of boys vs. girls could have effects on cognitive traits. For example it was long thought by some people that there were inherent differences between boys’ vs. girls’ mathematical aptitude, as judged by scores on various standardized tests, but in some countries with more equal social/educational environments those differences in scores entirely disappear. A web search turns up https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/women-and-math-the-gender-gap-bridged https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/women-and-m... > I recommend reading the Jensen’s 1998 book It should be mentioned that Jensen’s work has been highly controversial and has kicked off a lively debate. Some of the biggest promoters of Jensen’s work have been quite unsavory characters. Like all scholarly work (and especially all work seized on more by activists than scholars) it should be read critically and taken in the context of a wider discourse. * * * Disclaimer: I am no expert on this subject. Just a layperson who has occasionally read about it, mostly in popular media.

by xyzzyz 7y ago

jacobolus 7y ago

> Only if you erroneously assume ... The previous commenter made some qualified questioning speculation. Leaping to conclusions about what his or her unstated assumptions must have been and then calling them “erroneous” seems a bit hostile. * * * How does one tease out the difference between inherent biological differences vs. differences caused by a lifetime spent in the differing social/cultural environment facing boys vs. girls? How robust are working memory differences between sexes across time, across different countries, across different subcultural groups, etc.?

lmm 7y ago
> Leaping to conclusions about what his or her unstated assumptions must have been and then calling them “erroneous” seems a bit hostile. The original comment was leaping to the assumption that finding sex differences means there must be something wrong with the study/analysis. That's dangerously wrong.
- pdpi 7y ago
  > Also, one of the strongest predictions of working memory in all groups was gender, which may be an indicator that confounding factors haven't been broken down. “May be an indicator”. Not quite the Olympic jumping-at-conclusions performance I’d expect from a “dangerously wrong” comment.
xyzzyz 7y ago
Leaping to conclusions about what his or her unstated assumptions must have been If you don’t assume that the subtest scores are the same across sexes, the “qualified questioning speculation” that there is something wrong with control variables makes no sense. How does one tease out the difference between inherent biological differences vs. differences caused by a lifetime spent in the differing social/cultural environment facing boys vs. girls? This kind of unentanglement is usually done through twin studies: you compare how well correlated are monozygotic vs dizygotic twins. Since it’s reasonable to assume that both monozygotic and dizygotic twins share the same or at least very similar environments, if the correlation between monozygotic twins on a given trait is greater than in dizygotic twins, it means that genetic causation plays a role, while if the correlation is the same, there it is likely no genetic causation. Of course, it’s a bit hard to find monozygotic twins of different sexes, but similar ideas are used in that case. The point is, we do have the tools to unentangle nature from nurture, and in general, all points in the direction of genetic causation when it comes to cognitive traits. I recommend reading the Jensen’s 1998 book I mentioned.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  Twin studies don’t help you with this particular question. Beyond that, there are plenty of scholars who question the common interpretation of twin studies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study#Criticism > all points in the direction of genetic causation when it comes to cognitive traits To be precise, some evidence points in the direction that some variation in cognitive traits is “heritable”. It is obvious to everyone that there are substantial effects on cognitive traits due to malnutrition, disease, exposure to toxins, physical violence, persistent emotional trauma, and so on, as well as a substantial amount of variation that we currently don’t have explanations for (not to mention significant experimental noise and epistomological questions about the design and interpretation of the experiments). It is at least plausible that large-scale differences in the treatment of boys vs. girls could have effects on cognitive traits. For example it was long thought by some people that there were inherent differences between boys’ vs. girls’ mathematical aptitude, as judged by scores on various standardized tests, but in some countries with more equal social/educational environments those differences in scores entirely disappear. A web search turns up https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/women-and-math-the-gender-gap-bridged https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/women-and-m... > I recommend reading the Jensen’s 1998 book It should be mentioned that Jensen’s work has been highly controversial and has kicked off a lively debate. Some of the biggest promoters of Jensen’s work have been quite unsavory characters. Like all scholarly work (and especially all work seized on more by activists than scholars) it should be read critically and taken in the context of a wider discourse. * * * Disclaimer: I am no expert on this subject. Just a layperson who has occasionally read about it, mostly in popular media.