= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
HughRistik comments on What is missing from rationality? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (260)
See the Deary study of practically the entire population of Scottish 11 year-olds, which found greater male variability. The introduction of the study also discusses the history of the greater male variability hypothesis, and some of the evidence for it.
There is a cross-cultural study which found that males have higher variance in most populations, but females do in others. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the difference is "cultural," though it could.) I will try to dig it up. Even so, greater male variability is a robust finding.
This is the bit that I think is important when discussing results about intelligence:
However, I'm not saying you need to include this information in your comment because you already made the context specific: the Deary study. So a person can dig deeper and find these details if they want to.
Just to say, you didn't actually support this. Unless it is supported in the Dreary study?
It's supported at least by the combination of the Deary study, and the cross-cultural study I mentioned that I'll have to look up when I get home. I believe the author was Feingold. Good question, though.
Oh, I see I parsed your sentence wrong anyway. I thought there were some unidentified number of studies that showed women had greater variability.
My bad... The Feingold study is a meta-analyses of studies, some that find greater male variability, and some that find greater female variability in various dimensions.