Must be careful about representative samples. In NJ where 70% of students take SAT, females score lower than males in math and reading https://reports.collegeboard.org/pdf/2017-new-jersey-sat-suite-assessments-annual-report.pdf …. In Michigan where SAT mandatory for all, they score equally, females higher in reading: https://reports.collegeboard.org/pdf/2017-michigan-sat-suite-assessments-annual-report.pdf …
Sex difference in height growth. Lynn's developmental model is that brain size and thus intelligence follows the same pattern, but that many good datasets stop around age 16 so we miss the residual male growth up to age 19 while female is mostly done at 16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#/media/File:Human_height_growth_per_month,_United_States.png …pic.twitter.com/ukvYHsxNlS
-
-
-
Good find. Females actually higher (!). Seems like a good argument against Rushton's SAT paper. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.650.8324&rep=rep1&type=pdf …pic.twitter.com/zHydMpyle0
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You don't say. What matters is what data he has. Lynn seems to be winning that battle.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
I don't know if Lynn replied to that (if a reply is needed), but I do know that recently MQ had a special issue on sex differences with some very large studies generally showing male advantages.
- 1 more reply
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.