Yet another "hard-wired" argument - from UK chess expert

Maths is my profession. I do know what iff means. It did not make sense in your sentence.

Maths is my profession as well, so when challenged I need to look closely. There was indeed a flaw in my argument.

So, thank you Uptoapoint

"Papers have shown that males have the same intelligence, as females but the variance could be wider" (or that the variance is the same for both genders)

So, the error maybe to accept the argument, given it is flawed.

Or to reject the argument given that it is true.

Partial

Your own sense of logic must tell you that nature and nurture are inseparable variables in such studies. I very much doubt that any study went from "the average difference between male and female on this test was X" to "and we can state that this difference is definitively attributable to innate rather than socialised factors"

I can think of two critics of research into gender-based brain differences from within the psychology/neuroscience* community off the top of my head - Dr Cordelia Fine and Prof Gina Rippon.

• OT, but I had a conversation with a research psychologist yesterday that suggests that there is some dispute about which of these terms is valid for a number of areas of research in this field, but that of course is just one opinion and I don't know any more about it than that

"The recognised peers within that academic focus that read and review the paper with their approval."

This doesn't quite make sense. Do you mean you want to know who peer reviewed the original submission, or that you want to know who the authors would accept as their critics?

The recognised peers within that academic focus that read and review the paper with their approval.

Whom would you accept?

And who has found the flaws within the academic community?

I am quite prepared to accept that the findings are flawed, but only from within the recognised academic circle.

If such a circle is doubted, then that presents a lot of other issues... in my opinion.

Maths is my profession. I do know what iff means. It did not make sense in your sentence.

iff= if and only if

It's maths and logic shorthand.

You sound very hostile Uptoapoint.

Did you mean to sound like that?

What "iff"?

If a study is flawed you cannot accept the conclusion. What's so confusing about that?

"Studies have supported this instinct"

Studies can only be done on socialised people, by socialised people. I'm not cherry picking, I'm not denying there may be some statistically valid variation in the brains of blue eyed people and the brains of brown eyed people which would lead to an observable effect even if both were socialised the same. I'm saying you can't point and say "this difference, this one, is innate"

And if there was no difference in perception of male and female, do you think so many studies would be done, or would they be as rare as studies for my sneaky eye colour/brain structure hypothesis?

Uptoapoint
"Studies have supported this instinct, but they may be flawed" means you can't say studies have "supported this instinct".

hmm I spend half my life telling my students you can't make statements like was fairly conducted this.

I'm sorry. What statements would you encourage your students to make iff the paper was considered to be puka?

(My 'íff')

Yonic I'm sorry, I missed your post before pressing the POST MESSAGE button.

I will indeed try to get my school library to order a copy of Cordela Fine's book. It sounds like a crucial point of view in this argument.

Does the fact that girls have consistently been out performing boys in public exams have any place in this argument?

TBH I think women are just as guilty of accepting the "hard wired" argument wholesale and probably for similar reasons.

If you were to look around at all the inequality (representation of women on TV, in politics, in well paid jobs, in crime stats) and conclude that a lot of it was cultural rather than innate, well you'd end up depressed as hell and with the burden of having to do something about it.

There's a lot to be said for sticking your head in the sand

So the hard wired rationale is pretty attractive for men who don't want to have to admit that they are capable of cleaning the toilet but would just rather not do it. Better to come up with a theory about how women are so much better at multi-tasking and attention to detail. Likewise for the wife who doesn't want to tackle her husband about his laziness (which is what half the threads in relationships are about let's face it).

Same for Nige's wife's superior "emotional intelligence" Makes him feel better.

"Studies have supported this instinct, but they may be flawed" means you can't say studies have "supported this instinct".

I spend half my life telling my students you can't make statements like this.

"Studies have supported this instinct"

Studies can only be done on socialised people, by socialised people.

I can't say I like chess very much but I got all A's in maths & science A-levels and now work in engineering. Possibly because I had a male role model as a child who didn't think these things were just for boys...

Great post buffy.