

Study debunks notion that men and women are psychologically distinct - sp332
http://sinidentidades.tumblr.com/post/42395076857/study-debunks-notion-that-men-and-women-are

======
sp332
I don't generally post "blogspam" (it's not my blog) but the paper is behind a
paywall and the abstract is opaque jargon, so I thought the blog added some
value here.

Edit: The link is the headline and also the same link is the second word of
the blog. It goes here <http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/104/2/385/>

Men and women are from Earth: Examining the latent structure of gender.
Carothers, Bobbi J.; Reis, Harry T. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol 104(2), Feb 2013, 385-407. doi: 10.1037/a0030437

Taxometric methods enable determination of whether the latent structure of a
construct is dimensional or taxonic (nonarbitrary categories). Although sex as
a biological category is taxonic, psychological gender differences have not
been examined in this way. The taxometric methods of mean above minus below a
cut, maximum eigenvalue, and latent mode were used to investigate whether
gender is taxonic or dimensional. Behavioral measures of stereotyped hobbies
and physiological characteristics (physical strength, anthropometric
measurements) were examined for validation purposes, and were taxonic by sex.
Psychological indicators included sexuality and mating (sexual attitudes and
behaviors, mate selectivity, sociosexual orientation), interpersonal
orientation (empathy, relational-interdependent self-construal), gender-
related dispositions (masculinity, femininity, care orientation, unmitigated
communion, fear of success, science inclination, Big Five personality), and
intimacy (intimacy prototypes and stages, social provisions, intimacy with
best friend). Constructs were with few exceptions dimensional, speaking to
Spence's (1993) gender identity theory. Average differences between men and
women are not under dispute, but the dimensionality of gender indicates that
these differences are inappropriate for diagnosing gender-typical
psychological variables on the basis of sex. (PsycINFO Database Record (c)
2013 APA, all rights reserved)

------
lutusp
This is unbelievable blogspam. The linked article --

[http://sinidentidades.tumblr.com/post/42395076857/study-
debu...](http://sinidentidades.tumblr.com/post/42395076857/study-debunks-
notion-that-men-and-women-are)

\-- very briefly summarizes a study but without revealing its name, much less
offering any links. A search online produces this much better but still flawed
summary --

[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/04/study-debunks-
notion-t...](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/04/study-debunks-notion-that-
men-and-women-are-psychologically-distinct/)

\-- with the same title, and that has a link to the paywalled publication --

<http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/index.aspx>

\-- but this article also doesn't name the study or link to it. The above
article says about the unnamed study: "Analyzing 122 different characteristics
from 13,301 individuals in 13 studies, the researchers concluded that
differences between men and women were best seen as dimensional rather than
categorical."

So it's a meta-analysis, a technique with many pitfalls
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis>) unless precautions are taken
not to combine studies and experimental groups that differ in ways that can
destroy the meaning of any conclusions drawn.

Also, as is typical in psychological studies, the conclusions are phrased in
ways that prevent any meaningful basis for testing or falsification by
additional work. What does "dimensional rather than categorical" mean? Most
likely it means the differences are a matter of degree, not kind, but that
only changes the waffle-words, it doesn't turn the conclusion into testable,
empirical science.

My advice? Ignore articles that don't link to their sources -- "psychological
science" is unscientific and non-reproducible enough without the added
handicap of not being able to read the original article.

~~~
sp332
The headline is the link to the article. I've edited my other comment to add
the abstract in full.

