"The lack of relationship observed in these analyses may reflect systematic reporting bias in small fMRI studies that produces a published literature with more sex difference signals than truly exist." 1/
-
-
-
So, basically they seem to be saying that sex-differences are over-empathised in the research, BUT... 2/
-
"... sex differences in cognitive test performance are explained by hormonal differences throughout development..." So, yes, sex differences are, in part, rooted in broad biological differences... 3/
-
Also, there's a strawman in this research in " females and males belong to a single heterogeneous population rather than two distinct populations" - few are suggesting men and women are "distinct populations". 4/
-
Seems to me the nuanced conclusion is sex-differences can be rooted in biological difference, but the scientific community often over-emphasises them, especially if n is low, because we tend to promote positive results, even if they are false-positives.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There’s a well-known publication bias in favor of positive results (rejecting the null hypothesis) in virtually every area of study. So the relevant question for a specific area is probably not “Is there a null-rejection bias?” but “Is there more than typical bias?”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.