Talk:Variability hypothesis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Variability hypothesis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disputed content

@Grayfell. Since when is Heterodox Academy an unreliable source? (*can only find Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_365#Heterodox_Academy) Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog post from a group that promotes right-wing perspectives like Damore's. It is not neutral and doesn't have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The summary of this source was selective and misrepresented the controversy in Damore's favor, which is not appropriate. If you wish to mention this, cite a reliable source and summarize that source neutrally. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over whether it is true?

"In this context, there is controversy over whether such sex-based differences in the variability of intelligence exist," --> why does the lead say this when essentially all the evidence listed supports the hypothesis? Finnigami (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leta Hollingworth

This article is incredibly unbalanced (something @Phoenix1494 has already brought up but that was two and half years ago so I figure it still needs to addressed). As an example the article writes "Hollingworth argued that the variability hypothesis was flawed because: (1) it had not been empirically established that men were more anatomically variable than women..." which is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand considering that more or less is established now (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8675415/, https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fdev.20358), while much more recent, relevant and conclusive studies get one paragraph each that are half as long as each of the three that Hollingworth gets. In principle only the last paragraph is even slightly relevant scientifically (I say slightly because the much more recent study https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fdev.20358 contradicts it) while the first one is essentially just speculation and the second one should probably not be included at all or be rewritten under a larger "Criticisms" so that not just one person who died 1939 gets to have their say on the nay-side. Please reply if you disagree! Hexaltee (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]