[Idontknowmyuser]

I feel like this study published in july 2017 is very relevant: "Sex differences in brain size and general intelligence (g)"

link: 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.

Highlights • Sex differences in brain morphology and general intelligence were examined.

• MRI and test data of the Human connectome project were used (N = 896)

• Males and females differed in total brain size, gray, and white matter volumes

• The male-female difference in general intelligence, g, was d = 0.25.

• Sex differences in brain morphology mediated the sex difference in g.

[novia]

Do we really need to rehash the whole phrenology period of our history?

[Idontknowmyuser]

wait so a correlation between brain size and "generral intelligence score (g)" is phrenology? don't you feel like your mispresenting the study?

[novia]

Phrenology was used to justify pre-existing racism.

All these studies that show that men are naturally more intelligent because their brains are larger amount to the same thing, but racism is out of vogue, so let's use it to justify pre-existing sexism this time.

If 3 women published a scientific paper with the conclusion, "girls rule, boys drool," you wouldn't feel at least a little suspicious of the authors' intentions?

[Idontknowmyuser]

do you believe that the authors falsified their findings?

and also the idea is not to justify sexism, but to provide another possible reason for why a trend seems to perssist after apparent bias is eliminated. This is in response to the idea that oppression is somehow responsible for 100% of the gender-ratio gap.

I don't claim that biological reasons are the only reasons but I stress that they do in fact exist and that a violent response to suggesting that they might exist is not normal.

To use this studies to be sexist, is the wrong idea ,as the memo's author explained, because there is overlap between the populations and while on average one is better (in that respective function) then the other, that does not preclude that someone from the second group is better then someone one the first.

In other words, the result on hiring based on merit alone is better then both: - hiring only males - hiring based on prescribed gender quotas.

and by the way, there is studies that indicate that woman are better at empathy ( a sign of emotional intelligence): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476221