>>11321718>Besides all the research done over the years on the subject that you can look in the link I postedThe research in psychology on intelligence differences between the sexes is as inconsistent as the iq research you wholesale deny has any validity, in neuro there is conflicting evidence as to whether differences in various morphological features of the brain that vary between the sexes indicates differences in intelligence. Using pure intuition the fact that women are overwhelmingly underrepresented in math and physics undergraduate education and especially graduate programs, and continue to avoid these programs along with their history of not contributing to physics and math should be enough to provide a starting point for a theory of differences in intelligence between the sexes.
>I never made any inferenceyes you did reread your post.
>my post had nothing to do with itno you specifically suggested what you think is the case and why it is so, you connected this implicitly with g and iq being bullshit, and then falsely asserted the differences must be negligible or small. Context has meaning in conversation, you have to understand that as an adult other people will impute beliefs you may not have made explicit. Wikipedia btw is very specifically unreliable for behavioral and cognitive science research as it is heavily policed by ideologically motivated actors to prevent political leveraging of scientific research that does not favor conensus. There is an enormous body of literature on sex differences in cognitive function, it is mostly shit, but it exists and none of it is coherent or consistent. In some instances you have to use pure intuition to discern where a semblance of concrete theory exists, looking at actual real world performance is one of the best ways to begin for this problem. Women underperform consistently, that should be the first indication that something is biologically causative
