Talk:Variability hypothesis

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)

Because people don't like to admit certain very uncomfortable facts that go against the current political narratives which promotes equality amongst everyone and everywhere. It has a certain political mainstream bias. 93.159.154.34 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

It's not a hypothesis folks, it's an uncomfortable reality

I mean I'm sorry to say this and I know Wikipedia is more and more biased in certain topics... but let's be honest, it's reality and not a hypothesis anymore. Men are simply more extrem than women, on the lower and the higher end. Also Asperger Autism is 3-4x more likely in men than women.

If you force and trim GPT for truth maximising it speaks out this

Why it is "only a hypothesis":

In biology / social science terminology, calling something a "hypothesis" means it's not officially elevated to "law" or universally agreed, across all domains.

The term stuck from the 19th and early 20th century, when it was first debated.

There is political sensitivity:

Claiming inherent sex differences in variance is highly controversial in some academic and public circles.

As a result, even though the empirical data is solid in many domains, social pressure prevents calling it "proven" or "law."

3️⃣ Is it basically proven in reality? Yes — in many domains it is clearly empirically observed.

IQ: Greater male variability is extremely well documented in many large datasets → more male geniuses, more males at very low IQ.

Income: Huge variance among men; women’s income distribution is tighter.

Risk-taking behavior: Greater male variance.

Physical strength: Huge variance among men, less among women.

Evolutionary reason: → Male reproductive strategies historically favored higher variance: some big winners, many losers. → Female reproductive strategies favored lower variance, more reliable outcomes.

This article doesn't seem up to date and seems to try more to be politically correct, then to resemble the uncomfortable reality that we live in. 93.159.154.34 (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there's been a misunderstanding. Researchers themselves in modern studies do refer to it as a hypothesis, but that is not because they believe there is something wrong with the substantial evidence, nor do they ignore it.

I hope we can agree that the hypothesis predicts that males should be generally more variable due to something biological being involved.

For it to become a scientific theory (a scientific theory is different from a colloqiual one. Germ theory and cell theory are, well, theories just like gravity and evolution. They can't become laws or upgrade from theories because this the best you can get. there is a wikipedia page about this. Also scientific facts meaning empirical evidence does indeed exist supporting the hypothesis, meaning evidence of greater within group variance in males than females for some traits has indeed been consistently found.

The hypothesis following these observations of facts are males should be generally more variable and it is due to some inherent factor)

It would need to be tested several times independently and verified(it sort of has been for some, traits, but not all or most thus more traits would need to be tested and verified

Then the same goes for the causes, and then a unifying explanation that explains all the data that is supported by the evidence (biological evidence for example).

A few studies you might be interested in checking and please do: a large study of sex differences in variability among rats for several traits. Females were more variable in some and males in some others.[1]

Analysis of a large dataset for about 50 morphological and physiological traits in humans, like the one on mice, found males were more variable in some and females in the others (though among the traits they analysed they found there were more traits that females were variable in than there were those that showed greater male variability.)[2]

men were more variable in some occupational preferences and women in the others[3]

A 2016 study on several standarized tests found that the ratio of females in the right tail increased over the decades (for example in SAT-math the male-female ratio 13:1 but in the years 2011-2015 it was around 2-3:1) thus the contributions of environmental and social factors should not be ignored as they could play a major but of course this does not rule out biological effects.[4]

Halsey Et al 2024 found that often size rather than sex determined which sex was more variable in bodymass.[5]

So in conclusion, although the hypothesis has great evidence supporting it, there are some caveats but even if there weren't, it still was gonna take a couple more things for it to become a theory. But more research would've helped with that.

It being a hypothesis does not mean it's not a real thing and though I do agree with you that the introduction to this hypothesis on this page could be changed, I don't agree that GMV being a hypothesis is a sign of bias, it would be biased to not call it a hypothesis on the part of this wiki page as that is what it is called in the scientific community. AllFright (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)