Race gaps in brain size in the very young -- figures here given the basic pattern but there's a lot more evidence. http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7121 pic.twitter.com/Ea0R037Bri
-
This is the explanation from the cited paper, but (a) the claimed late-adolescent IQ difference only appears in some studies and not others, (b) encephalization quotients already differ before then, (c) purported domain-specific explanation rather muddled: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/ …pic.twitter.com/kHoSRnggKs
It's a 9 year old review by now. I'm not so sure about the null sex difference. See recent findings here. http://mankindquarterly.org/archive/issue/58-1 … Remember that test makers have often tried to build tests so they show no gaps. This gerrymandering of items can be done to some extent.
-
-
Fair points. Given known processes of CNS maturation extend to at least age 25, while relatively unbiased samples become quite difficult to obtain beyond roughly age 16-18, it is at least conceivable. Timing of male late growth spurts does come awfully close to that limit.
-
It does indeed. With regards to item gerrymandering, see this study which showed that it was possible under constraints of some test properties (using NHST). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616300423 …
-
Ah yes, for crystallized intelligence tests especially, it seems almost impossible by definition to avoid the ability to create systematic bias in one direction or another. Calibrating such a test for sex equality would be trivial.
-
There is a way. You choose the items after what predicts multiple, and relevant outcomes as well as shows lack of DIF. So, start by making e.g. 250 items, then choose 50 best.
-
Yes, exactly.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.