Talk:Sex differences in intelligence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Variability discussion in History section

Given that I removed an entire paragraph, I wanted to provide some context for that change and an opportunity for discussion. The paragraph in question (diff) provided a historical critique of the use of variability to describe sex differences. I found it to be unnecessary for at least the following reasons:

1) The rest of the Historical Perspectives section is generally chronological and charts a broad, if very simplistic sketch of the topic leading into the 20th century, for context to the contemporary discussion which follows in the rest of the article. This section's final paragraph made a sudden diversion to the topic of variability (specifically, a critique of its emergence in evolutionary theory) lacked any segue from that preceding it, and was out of order chronologically. Variability as an aspect of the current intelligence debate does not come up until much later in the article, and the paragraph felt like it was directly rebutting something with no clear textual antecedent.

2) The source used for this historical critique was relatively thin, drawn from a total of two sentences in the linked article (available in its totality here at the moment). The claim in question -- that variability switched its gender association in response to evolutionary theory's evaluation of it as a positive trait -- is restricted entirely to two sentences at the top of page 17, which rely in turn on a single source for their support (the 1970s essay found here). That latter (chronologically prior) source refers to only one case of women being presumed for greater variability, not as a consensus in the form that the redacted paragraph presented it:

Prior to the formulation of evolutionary theory, there had been little concern with whether deviation from the average or “normal” occurred more frequently in either sex. One of the first serious discussions of the topic appeared in the early 19th century when the anatomist Meckel concluded on pathological grounds that the human female showed greater variability than the human male. (page 6)

Perhaps some discussion of the "variability hypothesis" and historical context would fit the article, but it seems that a dismissal in the form of the redacted paragraph is out of place and too swift.

Jmpedit (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: Jmpedit (talk · contribs) removed the content here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Lack of structured data

Although interesting and extended this article lack a methodically ordered set of data, e.g a list of different standard IQ tests and test results divided by field (not just some percentage, quote score with average, mean and deviation) divided by gender and both adjusted and not adjusted for instruction leve. This is what should be the core of such an article. (Unregistered User) 21:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.71.221 (talk)

The second sentence

The first sentence of this article is fine. The second sentence is incomprehensible – for instance, "allowed" by whom? And how can such a piece of gibberish require seven references? I can't imagine anyone figuring out what it is meant to mean, let alone agreeing or disagreeing with it. Maproom (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Redo the introduction to the spatial ability section?

[67] and [68] seemed to be cherry-picked misleadingly for the intro (they also happened to be the oldest studies in the entire section, except [73]) and the statement "some studies investigating the spatial abilities of men and women have found no significant differences" does not form an accurate summary of the remainder of the section; better mentioned at the bottom independently then at the top. I've removed it and merged it with the second paragraph, unless someone wants to revert and do up an intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.43.14 (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Layout in section 2 seems incorrectly biased

The layout of the first two sections in particular, specifically call out research in favor of males having a higher g factor. After that is a section detailing that the alternative is no difference. Throughout the second section though there are a very large number of studies showing higher g factor in females.

There's a clear lack of parallelism here and I would argue that it unfairly biases the reader. Especially given the fact that there's much more material and evidence for the no difference section. I would argue that separating these two sections into three would be far more even-handed, neutral, and assist in information retrieval.

In parallel structure these are the points I would include under a new section: So measuring variance of Colom's study of 4,072 high school graduates, they found that females outperform males on the inductive Primary Mental Abilities reasoning test For example, a 2008 study by researcher Timothy Z. Keith on 25 subtests of Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, along with a sample of 6,818 adults and children from 6 to 59, found females scoring higher on the latent processing speed (Gs) factor, However the sex difference in general intelligence (g-factor) was inconsistent in children with small higher female g factor during adolescence, and consistent higher female latent g factor during adulthood. Researcher Timothy Z Keith replicated the same results again in the same year when he conducted a study of 3,025 6-18 year old participants with higher female latent g factor at all ages.[38] A 2015 study published in the journal of Psychology in Schools found no sex differences on standardized testing of achievement except a small persistent female advantage in reading and large female advantage in writing among a nationally representative sample of 1,574 6-21 year old participants.[45]

It's a pretty similar amount of material and evidence as in the first section. Similarly it's very inconsistent and doesn't represent the scientific majority view, but again, the current layout seems to break neutrality for unclear reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.104.60 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

James_p26 also agrees that this page seems incorrectly biased. If anyone looks at any number of current studies on sex difference in intelligence about 9/10 of the studies conclude that men have a slight advantage on IQ and G even after basically all tests remove items in which males have an advantage to reduce sex differences. Take a look at every standardized test in every country and you will see the same result. Also the fact that the opening paragraph states that "some studies" have concluded that men have higher variability is absurd. ITS EVERY SINGLE STUDY. The name of the article is sex DIFFERENCE!! in intelligence yet the article seems to be pretty determined to convince people that there is no difference. Its idiotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James P26 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

JamesP, you are an idiot. This is from the Wikipedia page on the variability hypothesis: "In an attempt to examine the validity of the variability hypothesis, while avoiding intervening social and cultural factors, Hollingworth gathered data on birth weight and length of 1,000 male and 1,000 female neonates. This research found virtually no difference in the variability of male and female infants, and it was concluded that if variability "favoured" any sex it was the female sex.[2][3][4][5] Additionally, along with the anthropologist Robert Lowie Hollingworth published a review of literature from anatomical, physiological, and cross-cultural studies, in which no objective evidence was found to support the idea of innate female inferiority.[2][3][4][6][8]" So no, it's definitely not "EVERY SINGLE STUDY." But go ahead and keep believing that males are more intelligent than females if it makes you feel better about your own sub-60 IQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.84.44 (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Primary source after primary source

Rafe87, it's one thing to add primary source after primary source at the Demographics of sexual orientation article (which, really, shouldn't be done). It's another to add them to this article. Since this article concerns the human brain, we really should be sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources when it comes to the intelligence studies. It's easy to get WP:Secondary or WP:Tertiary sources for this topic. Google Books has plenty. This article should not include WP:Primary source material after WP:Primary source material. I'm speaking to you too, R scott83. That is why I reverted here and here.

I'll leave a note about this at WP:Med and WP:Neuroscience for more input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Flyer22 Reborn The entire sections "Researchers in favor of males in g factor" and "Researchers in favor of no sex differences or inconclusive consensus" are primary studies. Why not remove them all? It's far more sensible than deleting cherrypicked sources, which could be seen as biased editing.Rafe87 (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Those sections should only include meta-studies and reviews, not sources about individual studies. Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Rafe87, per WP:Preserve, if one is to think about gutting an article, it should be done with care. I was focused on what you and R scott83 were adding more than I was focused on existing content, but the existing content is also obviously an issue. My "primary source after primary source" commentary above is clear that none of the sections should be built like that. And like I told you before, existing poor content does not mean that it is okay to add more poor content. Removal of your poor content does not mean that I need to take a chainsaw to all of the existing content. If I see recently added unsourced material at an article, for example, as I often do when using WP:STiki, and remove it, I don't think: "Well, I might as well go ahead and remove all of the other unsourced stuff." We have Template:Citation needed tags and similar for a reason. We have WP:Preserve for a reason. If I saw that what you and R scott83 added was something to be kept, I would not have removed it and would have suggested you use better sources instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Can the rest of the primary sources be removed now? I'm fine with all the primary sources being removed, but not just the ones I inserted. Rafe87 (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Rafe87, re-read what I stated to you above. Read again what I stated to Jytdog below. A lot of this stuff can be updated with tertiary or secondary sources. So, per the WP:Preserve policy, if any of the primary sources that are removed can be easily replaced with tertiary or secondary sources, they should be replaced with those sources. Otherwise, we will either be cutting away material along with primary sources and will wind up with a WP:Stub article or the article will be mostly unsourced. If you are truly interested in improving this article, then you should follow the WP:Preserve policy and fix the primary sources issue by seeing what material can be updated with tertiary or secondary sources, and then update that material. Or wait until someone else does it. This is not about you getting to remove all of the other primary-sourced material because your primary-sourced material was removed; that is not how Wikipedia works. WP:Preserve states, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Right now, you are not trying to fix anything. You are simply requesting that we remove other material because your material was removed. When it came to me removing your and the other editor's material, what was there to fix? What tertiary or secondary sources cover it? And how is it not WP:Undue weight even if they do? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• gah this article needs almost a complete rewrite. the header is apt. There are primary sources from the 1980s in here for pete's sake. that is 30 year old stuff. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the tags, Jytdog. I know that a lot of the stuff can be updated with tertiary or secondary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I'm a little out of my depth with MEDRS/SCIRS, but I reverted more content, this time by James P26 that looks like it was supported by a primary source today. I was considering putting <!-- hidden warnings --> in every section to tell people that they must not use 'just freshly made' scientific studies, but it might be overkill. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

- Are we not supposed to add sources on current research? It automatically gets deleted? I wasn't using Wikipedia sources by the way. I actually purchased and own the rights on the full research publications. Also this entire article is citing sources, most of which are way out of date. I was simply trying to freshen the article up a little with current research studies. Most of which by the way show a male advantage on virtually every cognitive measure. JAMES_P26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by James P26 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, My name is not dave.

James P26, regarding sourcing, see what I stated above and on my talk page. You need to stick to WP:Tertiary and WP:Secondary sources that are WP:MEDRS-compliant, not primary sources. Yes, the article needs cleanup; that has been established above. That it needs cleanup does not mean that more primary and/or poor sources should be added to it. As for a male advantage, research on that matter is mixed, which is made clear by the article. For example, like this 2010 "The Handbook of Life-Span Development, Volume 2: Social and Emotional Development" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 668, states, "Sex differences in general intelligence are negligible (see, e.g., Collaer & Hines, 1995; and Hines 2004). The lack of a sex difference in intelligence may seem unsurprising, given that intelligence tests are designed to avoid sex differences. However, even before an effort was made to avoid sex differences, intelligence tests were largely gender neutral (Loehlin, 2000). It also has been suggested that males are more variable than females in intellectual ability, at least at some ages (Arden & Plomin, 2006; Deary et al., 2003), although these sex differences also are of negligible size. In addition, the evidence regarding the existence of greater male variability is mixed, with some studies finding no sex difference in variability, or more variability in girls than in boys at some ages (Arden & Plomin, 2006; Harnqvist, 1997; Reynolds et al., 2008). Despite the lack of an appreciable sex difference in general intelligence, males and females differ in performance on measures of some specific cognitive abilities, including aspects of spatial, mathematical, and verbal abilities, as well as perceptual speed." This source is the type of sources you need to be using for this article, not individual studies that conflict with one another or agree with one particular side. Also, you should sign your user name with four tildes when talking on Wikipedia talk pages. Don't remove identification, like you did here, unless you are going to sign properly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@flyer22reborn: Individual studies that conflict with one another is the entire article. If you look at the section for "researchers in favor or no difference" it appears to be exactly what I added. Which is just individual studies with a source added. If I go to science direct, research gate or other scientific research sites and find a large amount of studies verifying the same information is it possible to paraphrase the general consensus and just list all of their names in parenthesis with the dates? Thank you for your well thought out response. I still feel like editors are just meticulously picking and deleting items that they don't like or agree with. James P26 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)james_p26

Hi again, James P26. Did you take the time to truly digest what I stated above to you? Read the WP:Primary sources policy. Read the WP:MEDRS guideline. If you want to edit successfully here, then you need to conform to this site's rules. Look at the source I quoted above, which is summarizing the literature. You can find more sources like that on Google Books. The research on this matter is mixed, and numerous tertiary and secondary sources are clear on that; they also state that sex differences in general intelligence are negligible (meaning "so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant"). Unless using a few examples, adding individual studies does not help readers understand anything on this topic, given that the research is mixed and that the sex differences are so small when they are found. The current poor state of the article does not justify you contributing to that poor state. The article needs cleanup, and part of that means removing the primary sources and replacing them with tertiary or secondary sources; I already noted this above. As for your question, that would be WP:Synthesis unless it's one or more reliable tertiary or secondary sources explicitly stating a consensus on the matter. Read WP:Synthesis as well so that you know what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

talk, the entry is brimming with primary sources as it is. When I try to insert one showing a given point of view—that there are sex differences—you delete it, but then you let other primary sources showing "no differences" stand in the article. I see no reason why the Burgaleta study, a primary source, should be allowed to stay, while the Human Connectome Project should not. Both studies deal with the same subject and both are primary sources. Plus, the Burgaleta study has 100 participants and is highly unrepresentative of the population. The HCP has almost 900 and is more representative. Why should the former be allowed to stay while the latter is deleted, even though it's clear the latter is the one with better quality? Fairness and objective determine that either both stay, or both get deleted. Since you're deleting the HCP study because it is primary source, I'm deleting the Burgaleta under the same reasoning.Rafe87 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Rafe87, re-read what I stated above. It's right there, already answered for you! This is not about removing information because I don't like it. I'm not the one POV-pushing. All that material is already in the article; I didn't add it. This is about preventing more primary sourced information from being added to push a certain POV, in either direction. This is not you being concerned about primary sources or being helpful. It's you removing results you don't like. You've had a year to do what I suggested above. Instead, even after objections above (where I'm clearly not the only one objecting) to adding more primary source studies, you went right back adding a primary source to try and counter an existing primary source. Since it's clear you aren't interested in helping this article, and that no one else, at this point in time, is interested in fixing it in the way it needs to be fixed, Jytdog or someone else (maybe even me) going ahead and chopping at it might be best. I and others can always build it back up properly after the cutting. And the thing about Jytdog is that he won't just chop what he doesn't like. He's an equal-opportunity chopper. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I will have a look over the weekend... Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A half-truth I hear pretty often

"Some studies have concluded that there is larger variability in male scores compared to female scores, which results in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution."

Should it not be mentioned that if we apply the deviating AVERAGE between males and females(according to WAIS etc.) the "more men at the bottom" should be at the bottom of the MALE distribution, and NOT at the total distribution? I smell bias in the phrasing of that sentence. 85.194.2.53 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Marilyn via savant

If there were more males at top of iq scale, isn’t it odd that savant is smartest person known in world? This is a “data point” that seems to make the claim of more smart males at the very top improbable.107.77.229.217 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

She's not the smartest person in the world. We don't know who is. She's scored best at an IQ test eons ago, when she was a child. That is all. I do not know how a single person might refute the fact, attested in dozens of studies, that men have more variance in IQ (as they do for most psychological traits). Rafe87 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because the literature itself conflicts on the matter, as noted in many reliable sources that present or review the literature on sex differences in intelligence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Page is biased towards men being more intelligent.

There is a section on researchers in favor of males and a section on researchers in favor of no sex difference. There is no section on researchers in favor of females, even though some researchers (such as James Flynn) have found female IQ to be above male IQ in some places. The page omitting this research - probably because of a BS political opinion - is misleading to the readers of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.84.44 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your changes without giving them much thought. But if they are improvements, they should be restored. Just keep WP:Due weight in mind. As for men being more intelligent, as noted in the #Primary source after primary source section above, there are issues with the article. And like I commneted there, this 2010 "The Handbook of Life-Span Development, Volume 2: Social and Emotional Development" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 668, states, "Sex differences in general intelligence are negligible (see, e.g., Collaer & Hines, 1995; and Hines 2004). The lack of a sex difference in intelligence may seem unsurprising, given that intelligence tests are designed to avoid sex differences. However, even before an effort was made to avoid sex differences, intelligence tests were largely gender neutral (Loehlin, 2000). It also has been suggested that males are more variable than females in intellectual ability, at least at some ages (Arden & Plomin, 2006; Deary et al., 2003), although these sex differences also are of negligible size. In addition, the evidence regarding the existence of greater male variability is mixed, with some studies finding no sex difference in variability, or more variability in girls than in boys at some ages (Arden & Plomin, 2006; Harnqvist, 1997; Reynolds et al., 2008). Despite the lack of an appreciable sex difference in general intelligence, males and females differ in performance on measures of some specific cognitive abilities, including aspects of spatial, mathematical, and verbal abilities, as well as perceptual speed."

The lead of the article currently states, in part, "With the advent of the concept of g or general intelligence, many researchers have argued for no significant sex differences in g factor or general intelligence, while others have argued for greater intelligence for males. The split view between these researchers depended on the methodology and tests they used for their claims." So, yes, the article clearly shouldn't present men as definitively smarter than women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual disability

@Flyer22 Reborn: I find no positive affirmation in our articles on the subject that there are individuals whose IQ is below 70 but who are not considered as having an intellectual disability. Wikipedia is unclear at best on the topic, but IQ classification does imply that such individuals are (or at least were once) considered inherently intellectually disabled; see also Learning disability § Contrast with other conditions, which says "usually". This appears to be a weakness of Wikipedia's coverage of this subject (including German Wikipedia, see de:Intelligenzminderung). I would appreciate if you could improve it, if you are so well-read on this subject. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, this, this and this, I explained briefly. You are equating "bottom of the IQ distribution" with "an IQ that is below 70" and intellectual disability. "Bottom of the IQ distribution" does not only mean those at the very bottom, and, as the Intellectual disability article currently makes clear, intellectual disability is not only an IQ under 70, but also "deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors that affect everyday, general living." And "Once focused almost entirely on cognition, the definition now includes both a component relating to mental functioning and one relating to individuals' functional skills in their environments. As a result of this focus on the person's abilities in practice, a person with an unusually low IQ may not be considered to have intellectually disability." In other words, having a low IQ does not automatically equate to intellectual disability. A low IQ also is not solely someone with an IQ under 70. Is 73 not a low IQ as well, for example? It is, according to reliable sources. Also, the bottom or top might be defined by specific percentages. A source might state "adults in the bottom 5% of the IQ distribution (below 75), or "the bottom 15​%" or "the top 85​%." Look at these IQ charts, which are common types of IQ charts that are used. You can see that the "normal IQ range" has been considered those in the 85 to 115 range, but also that "below average" has been considered those with a 90 between 100 IQ. One of the charts conceptualizes 70 to 89 as borderline, while 69 and below is considered intellectually deficient or very low. Another chart conceptualizes 90 to 109 as average. Lower, below the charts, the site also has its own ranges, stating that 70 to 79 is "borderline retarded" (of course, retarded is not a word we use anymore), that 80 to 89 is "below average," that 90 to 109 is "average," that 110 to 129 is "above average," that 130 to 139 is "gifted," and that 140 to 149 is "highly Intelligent." I've seen all of these ranges before, and a number of them since I was a child (I was tested for supposed giftedness a lot, in different states and in three different countries). Anyway, my point is that a low and/or below average range is not simply considered those with a 70 or below IQ, and a low and/or below average IQ does not necessarily mean intellectually disability. Furthermore, IQ tests are flawed, as a simple Google search on that matter shows. A person's IQ may very well read low on paper, but that person may actually have average intelligence, for example. You also pipelinked "top" with "intellectual giftedness," but as that article currently states, "most school placement decisions and most longitudinal studies over the course of individual lives have followed people with IQs in the top two percent of the population – that is, IQs above 130." Do you see the sources in this (Sex differences in intelligence) article talking about the top two percent only when speaking of those in the top IQ distribution? Although the Intellectual giftedness article also states that "there is no generally agreed definition of giftedness for either children or adults" and that "definitions of giftedness also vary across cultures," it might be best to exclude that link for "top." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Problematic variability references

Hi, new to wikipedia, sorry if I inadvertently don't pose this correctly. I'd like to point out a problem with both references [57,58] appearing in

"Males tend to show greater variability on many traits, for example having both highest and lowest scores on tests of cognitive abilities,[9][54][55][56] though this may differ between countries.[57][58]"

[58] is a relatively small study (n=150), a fact the authors acknowledge. It doesn't mention variance/variability once. It's true that figure 1 shows a narrower distribution in scores for men vs women. However, 1) The distributions are truncated gaussians, so likely to suffer ceiling effects 2) the main claim of the paper is that males have a statistically significant better score than females. The combination of 1) and 2) could well be responsible for a narrowing in the male score distribution (bunching near the top). FWIW, the M:F ratio in the top 5% is 3:1, which supports the hypothesis that males are more frequent in the tails. I think [58] is a weak reference, and should be dropped.

[57] is a study into a particular set of high school mathematics aptitude tests...not IQ tests. I think that should be emphasized. As such, it's unclear, at least from reading the paper, whether the reversal in variance ratios is due to cultural differences between the countries or limitations of that particular test (e.g., score ceiling effects, non-gaussianity in test score distribution). Hopefully there's a more robust study into IQ differences in variability between countries. I recommend replacing 57 with a more appropriate set of references. I've found references with mixed messages. Comparing a large US + UK cohort and finds good reproducibility in variance ratios between these two countries: They don't look at IQ but make some effort to correlate results from their standardized CogAT tests with IQ Br J Educ Psychol. 2009 Jun;79(Pt 2):389-407. doi: 10.1348/000709908X354609. Epub 2008 Sep 25. Here is another meta analysis claiming that variance ratios are not reproducible between countries, although it seems that different tests were used in different countries, and the author admits that s/he was unable to control for ceiling effects https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01420741 . Ideally there's some paper out there which compares IQ test score distribution M:F tail ratios or variances, while carefully accounting for ceiling effects. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.178.183 (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot that needs to be removed from the article and some of it needs to be replaced with non-WP:Primary sources. See the section above about primary sources. The Variability hypothesis article has also been subject to debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Overrealiance on primary sources

User: Flyer22 Reborn: As you may recall, over a year ago I tried to insert some content in this entry with recent study summaries showing a male advantage on g. I was reverted because the studies, though published in high-profile newspapers, having large samples and/or attracting some media attention, were merely primary sources. However, almost all of the remaining content in the sex differences section is based only on such sources. Last time, I was under the impression that this situation would be solved, but more than a year has passed and the situation remains the same, that is, the entire section is still based on sources that are deficient because they are primary. I ask myself again: why has my content been deleted if it is permissible for other primary sources to remain there? I'm very tempted to insert my content again or delete what's already there, especially the section on "female advantage on g", 95% of which is based on a single study, which smells like Undue Weight. Let's talk.Rafe87 (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Rafe87, sure, we can talk. In the meantime, while I didn't revert you on this, I have reverted you on all of this per the WP:Preserve policy I pointed you to in the past. That is an important policy. We need to carefully check if any of that material should be included. It is not acceptable for us to remove content that should be in this article. A slash approach without taking the time to look at the literature and see if the material is supported by non-primary sources is not the route to take. As for you being under the impression "that this situation would be solved, but more than a year has passed and the situation remains the same," you cannot force an editor to do work that you should be doing yourself. I cannot force an editor to do work that I should be doing myself. This is a volunteer project; I don't have to do a thing here. But since you have taken to slashing the article because I did not agree to include your (and more) primary source material in the article, I will now take this matter into my own hands and substantially fix up this article. I will work on a draft (off Wikipedia) over the weekend and implement the new text before or on Monday. I ask that you do not revert to the version I just reverted you on. To avoid a WP:Edit conflict or rather something similar, I also ask that you do not substantially edit this article today or the next few days. I assure you that I will remove or reduce content that should be removed or reduced. As for "why has [your] content been deleted if it is permissible for other primary sources to remain there," I thoroughly addressed you on this in the #Primary source after primary source section above. I suggest you re-read what I stated. It's not about the current content being permissible. If you doubt that I will significantly fix up this article soon, I suggest you have a look at this other WP:Preserve matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Overhauled article. Although the date states April 9th (meaning in Wikipedia time), I overhauled the article on April 8th (Monday, as promised). I cut almost all of the primary sources, replacing them with secondary sources or tertiary sources. As for the cases where I left in the primary sources, I left them in for the WP:In-text attribution pieces of the "Historical perspectives" section, and for the beginning of the "During the early twentieth century" part of that section. I also added additional sources to that section. I'll continue looking for additional sources for the Thomas Gisborne piece. I left in meta-analysis material, as meta-analyses are secondary sources and are often known to review the literature. I left in book sources that were already there, reformatting some and letting others stay as they are due to not finding the missing pages for them and due to laziness in some cases. I will look for the missing pages again at a later date. I added in some material, such as a bit to the "Historical perspectives" section. In the "Mathematics performance" section, I left in the Benbow primary source because, apparently, that Benbow was criticized by researchers is in a Cambridge University Press source right next to that source. In that same section, I left in the New York Times source for the National Science Foundation material because it is reporting on a statement from the National Science Foundation and I added an additional source (a reliable book source) for it. I cut the "Cognitive reflection test" section since it needs non-primary sourcing and I will see about restoring some of that later. I significantly cut the "Sex differences in academics" section because it wasn't really about intelligence and it used primary sources. And it's even questionable that the little material I left there in that section should be in this article. It's better suited for the Sex differences in education article. The "Self-fulfilling effects of scientific accounts of sex differences" section began with a primary source while most of it was WP:Synthesis, or rather, for some cases, the section should have had a different title. I cut the "Dyslexia" section because there are a number of learning disabilities that can be covered in this article with regard to intelligence. I don't see why we should focus on dyslexia alone. As an aside: I'm about to add a WP:Hidden note in the lead and in sections of the article, asking that editors stick to secondary sources or tertiary sources when it comes to adding material to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)