It’s not respected research, though, is it?

At least 3 of us have poked massive holes in the methodology.  I can think of at least two ways of restructuring the analysis to make it more robust.

I’m very disappointed this was published in PNAS, that’s usually a quality journal.  I had a paper published in PNAS 10 years ago so I’m bound to say that.  We had much more rigorous statistics than this paper.

If I’d have been reviewing it, I wouldn’t have let it pass.  However, I know how the academic publishing racket works, so I’m not surprised.

Would expect the statistical analysis in that paper to be bulletproof. Psychologists get too much ridicule as it stands to bollox up something that simple. A maths paper OTOH is way more likely to peddle bobbins stats, as no one would presume to question the aristocrats of the academy on something so prosaic.

The ‘data’ itself, though – Half a million self-reporting questionnaires off a telly program? Don’t know abar that – seems more suitable for J. Bolloxology, but then again I suppose you have to take a mass media approach to build very large datasets in this area.

I haven’t read the entire thread, but anyone who’s entertained by this might want to google the American comedian Jordan Peterson, who does a brilliant parody of this sort of thing. He’s kind of like Sasha Baron Cohen or Alan Partridge.

“Equalising outcomes is a rdiculous construct and all the evidence shows that it’s not what people want.”

It’s sad to think of girls being forced into STEM (frequently seen as the measurement of equality) at the altar of feminism. I see it happening.

Here is a good analysis of why this piece of research and the ideas behind it are utter rubbish and further links to analysis for reputable people in the feild..  Read it and learn
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/18/not-all-pink-and-blue-when-its-comes-to-our-brains

Here is another demolition of this useless piece of “research”

https://cosmicshambles.com/words/blogs/deanburnett/male-and-female-brains

The researchers in the press release do confirm that the data from their study doesn’t actually reveal what the cause of the sex differences demonstrated. It could be genetic, it could be hormonal, it could be influences and pressures from the culture in which we develop.

It’s sad to think of girls being forced into STEM (frequently seen as the measurement of equality) at the altar of feminism. I see it happening.

Sad to see anyone forced into anything….. How many men are forced into these areas over jobs in care and other empathetic careers.

Dunno where I fit into this anyway.  I have some significant autistic traits, work in a highly empathic field, am very systematic in my approach to things.

And there is clear evidence of underreporting / under diagnosis of autism in women – why – gender bias!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/14/thousands-of-autistic-girls-and-women-going-undiagnosed-due-to-gender-bias

The only surveys/studies worth their salt are those with which we may convince ourselves that we were ‘right all along’

97.9% cats agree.

It’s not ‘my drivel’ it’s published and respected academic research.

It doesn’t appear to be now it’s been published and others have had a crack at reviewing it. In fact, it seems rather flawed.

We already have this though, which is why the battle ground has shifted to trying to equalise outcomes

Do you actively try and kid yourself? We are not close to achieving equality of opportunity.

“We are not close to achieving equality of opportunity.”

That’s the easy bit of the post.

Why don’t you write the difficult bit which is explaining why?