@MichaelK could you please first explain me how this is telling me how to edit my post?
@Federico I am sorry but just because you feel that you are less likely to get an answer at the appropriate parts of an SE does not mean you can automatically take it someplace else. The Q&A sections of SE are not a "chat", nor forums. The Q&As have specific guidelines on what you can post there and they are not a free-for-all-and-anything. And no, this is not "just because"... it is to save your post from being perpetually locked and unanswered. — MichaelK12 mins ago
1. I never said that I feel less likely to get an answer elsewhere
Well... you are the one with a question on hold and that needs to edit it before it gets opened again, because you cannot argue your way into getting it reopened. I am trying to help you there. If you want to reject that help just because you want to quarrel about irrelevant issues, then fine by me... I have better things to do. Your choice... do you want the help or not?
Hi there! The problem with the paper is the following: There are several reasons for statistical variance in populations, roughly separated into genetic reasons (furthermore called GR) and non-genetic reasons (like molecular randomness during develpment, factors in gestation, sunlight, phase of the moon, whatever; furthermore called NR); If you take an entity that reproduces asexually (to factor that complication out) and clone it, you will get a distribution of anything you want to measure : length, color, IQ,... - as these are clones, the variance is strictly due to NR. Then, if you look …
There is, as far as i know, no one definition of punctuationism - it is a subset of gradualism, though, so it would not contradict the above mechanism, just propose that the drift is quite small to nonexistent over long periods of time.
these were linked to me by people on biology.SE when I asked a question mentioning punctuactionism vs gradualism: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/punctuated_01
and yes, by having the drift close to non-existent, the effect of "the mean would have to drift" could then be negligible
that was my point for the follow-up. but I can accept the fact that I don't know enough on the subject
ah, now i see what you are getting at. (btw, the berkeley stub is quite good). the paper argues basic principles, though, so the whole aspect of external factors tweaking the way evolution works does not come into play.
fine, no external factors, but if evolution works with punctuated equilibria, we have to determine if we are in one or not before making claims about drifts of the mean, or that's what I understood
if evolution instead works with graduality, always, then my point is not valid, and I would be fine with it.
The paper leads with the IQ- thing, but in reality does not argue that point, and rather proposes something that a) needs no proposing because it is well known, or b) is flawed; In any case, the proposal is very pure (normal distributions, hard cutoffs) and need not/cannot be argued with additional factors
If you are about to argue the viability of the IQ-thing, i am not the right person to do this with, as i know exactly zero of the non-posci literature pertaining to IQ.
I got lost too. Please restate your point. What i am saying is: The paper argues maths. the maths are right. The paper then argues that this math bears on evolution, and the paper does this in a way that leaves unclear whether they just 'rediscovered' something very basic, or went offtrack badly. Example: '1+1=2 which means that if i get another dollar, i have two' - math is correct, result is only correct if i have one dollar to begin with.
Hi @Federico. Your question doesn't seem to have received a very friendly welcome, and I note you have deleted it. I am hopeful it can be recovered, if you are still interested.
My first concern was that I read the question and was left with no clue about what the actual subject of the question was.
My second concern is that whether a paper contains "many holes" sounds subjective.
I read a criticism of the paper on a blog, in passing, a few days ago. I haven't read the actual paper. I didn't pay much attention, and would have to search to find it.
The criticism was basically "This paper should never have been accepted by peer review in the first place, because the maths is bad, not because the subject is problematic."
I can't help think we are missing the point here. That one paper describing a theoretical model is good or bad is largely irrelevant. The empirical question that Skeptics.SE would be able to tackle well is: Does the actual effect (men having greater variability) actually exist, or is it just a speculative model with no empirical evidence?
It's frequently quoted, this seems to be the main research used:
Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals.
Hedges LV, Nowell A. Science. 1995 Jul 7;269(5220).
From the abstract: "...the test scores of males consistently have larger variance"
Larry Summers, got into a little trouble when at a speech in 2005 at a National Bureau of Economic Research he said:
There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to th...
I recently stumbled across the following article:
Sorry, men ARE more brainy than women (and more stupid too!) It's a simple scientific fact, says one of Britain's top dons, in which the author claims:
1. That men are on average smarter than women:
one of the main reasons why there are not m...
"The paper then argues that this math bears on evolution, and the paper does this in a way that leaves unclear whether they just 'rediscovered' something very basic, or went offtrack badly." My question is about this. You previously said: "if we were talking about GR (which we are), then the mean would have to drift (this is what evolution is about)." My question: are we sure it **has** to drift? Or does punctual equilibrium allow us to assume, in certain cases, that the mean does not drift?
Well, you started by accusing me of obfuscating the claim and then disappeared without giving me chance to rebuke the accusation, not a great start, from my perspective. Anyway, as I already said in the comments and again here, I have no interest in: - asking a question I did not want to ask (and that would be a duplicate) - making a massive effort for nothing, since MadScientist already told me that no matter what, my question is off-topic.
I recently stumbled across the following article:
Sorry, men ARE more brainy than women (and more stupid too!) It's a simple scientific fact, says one of Britain's top dons, in which the author claims:
1. That men are on average smarter than women:
one of the main reasons why there are not m...
Hub of Reason
Hub of Reason