Hello There, Guest!  
1 2 3 4 5 9 Next   

[OBG] Sexual selection explains sex and country differences in fluid g

#1
Sexual dimorpshism in fluid intelligence suggests that this phenotype is a sexually selected trait.
Sexual selection has the double effect of increasing average population phenotype and reducing genetic variation in sexually selected traits. Matching these predictions, the average country fluid g (estimated from PISA Creative Problem Solving) is positively correlated to sex dimorphism and the latter in turn is inversely correlated to variance in intelligence scores withn populations. Average country male height is negatively correlated to sex dimorphism in intelligence, supporting the notion of a trade-off between selection for brain and brawn.


Attached Files
.docx   SexualSelectionIQ (2).docx (Size: 33.59 KB / Downloads: 1,024)
.xlsx   SexDifferencesPISAOBG.xlsx (Size: 12.11 KB / Downloads: 682)
 Reply
#2
Why did you only use one PISA subtest as a measure of country-level IQ?
 Reply
#3
(2014-Jul-04, 21:25:33)Philbrick Bastinado Wrote: Why did you only use one PISA subtest as a measure of country-level IQ?


Because I do not consider PISA Math, Reading and Science to be good measures of IQ. They are too much affected by scholastic skills.
 Reply
#4
What about the hundred years of research showing correlations upwards of 0.7 between scholastic skills and IQ, or the fact that scores on standard fluid intelligence tests are strongly affected by years of schooling?
 Reply
#5
(2014-Jul-04, 22:58:00)Philbrick Bastinado Wrote: What about the hundred years of research showing correlations upwards of 0.7 between scholastic skills and IQ, or the fact that scores on standard fluid intelligence tests are strongly affected by years of schooling?


Intelligence is novel problem solving. Thus, PISA Creative Problem Solving conforms better to the definition of intelligence than assessments of scholastic aptitudes.
 Reply
#6
You're not replying to my objections. Keep in mind, also, that the face validity of an IQ test is a poor guide to its "deep" validity, or what it "really" measures. Vocabulary seems fairly trivial and superficial, but it is actually among the best predictors of g, reaction time, scholastic performance, achievement, and so on.

Keep the analyses using only Creative Problem Solving if you like, but I insist that you re-run the study using the entire PISA, and PISA + nationalIQ (supplemented by Malloy's more accurate values).
 Reply
#7
(2014-Jul-05, 07:19:04)Philbrick Bastinado Wrote: You're not replying to my objections. Keep in mind, also, that the face validity of an IQ test is a poor guide to its "deep" validity, or what it "really" measures. Vocabulary seems fairly trivial and superficial, but it is actually among the best predictors of g, reaction time, scholastic performance, achievement, and so on.

Keep the analyses using only Creative Problem Solving if you like, but I insist that you re-run the study using the entire PISA, and PISA + nationalIQ (supplemented by Malloy's more accurate values).


I've already answered. PISA relies too much on scholastic knowledge, it's more a test of how much effort people put into studying and this varies considerably by sex, with women notoriously being more hard working in school settings. This would give them a non-g dependent advantage in PISA reading,math and science, making it a poor measure of sex differences in g. Moreover, PISA CPS has the advantage of testing the core of intelligence, and providing an estimate in a single number, whereas PISA reading, math and science has 3 different subscales which load on different subskills with big gender differences, as shown by the fact that girls greatly outperform boys in Reading whereas they underperform boys in Math. It would just make the analysis disorderly and cumbersome, without providing any additional benefit. I attach a table (that Gerhard sent me) showing correlations between PISA problem solving and IQ, PISA reading,math, science.


Attached Files
.docx   PISA 2012 correlations (1).docx (Size: 16.93 KB / Downloads: 648)
 Reply
#8
The PISA r x CPS is less than PISA r x Math, and they're all in the 0.8-0.9 range. As for sex dimorphism this could be measured using PISA factor scores, which would eliminate specific subtest variance. Look, if you really insist on leaving out the other PISA subscales fine (I'll still approve the paper, because of the high part-whole PISA subtest correlations), but you're weakening the paper by doing so.
 Reply
#9
(2014-Jul-06, 01:02:26)Philbrick Bastinado Wrote: The PISA r x CPS is less than PISA r x Math, and they're all in the 0.8-0.9 range. As for sex dimorphism this could be measured using PISA factor scores, which would eliminate specific subtest variance. Look, if you really insist on leaving out the other PISA subscales fine (I'll still approve the paper, because of the high part-whole PISA subtest correlations), but you're weakening the paper by doing so.


Philbrick, you are free to post your comments to any articles on OpenPsych but you do not have reviewer's privileges for OBG, because you were appointed as a reviewer only for ODP. Thanks for your "virtual" approval though :)
 Reply
#10
This is an interesting paper which I hope to eventually see published. However, a couple of suggestions. (1) I wonder if height is a good measure to use. These are often self-estimates and are thus not very reliable. As such, it might be better to use a number of different estimates to obviate the unreliability. For example, Lynn did a paper on penis length in different European countries. (2) It strikes me that the paper would be strengthened by using all of the PISA data as there is a high correlation between this and IQ.
 Reply
1 2 3 4 5 9 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)