Racial Differences in Masculinity-Femininity?

Nyborg thinks so….

Nyborg, H. (2012). Migratory selection for inversely related covariant T-, and IQ-Nexus traits: Testing the IQ/T-Geo-Climatic-Origin theory by the General Trait Covariance model. Personality and Individual Differences.

Nyborg 2010


Whether or not this is the case can readily be investigated by constructing an Add Health M-F scale and comparing mean differences. In table 1, Udry and Chantala (2004) list wave 2 variables that can be used, if anyone is interested … (If you need a (bootleg) copy of SPSS, let me know.)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Racial Differences in Masculinity-Femininity?

  1. Rudi says:

    Are you able to post this also over at Human Varieties?

    • Chuck says:

      Naive HBD or sophisticated HBD?

      Sophisticated HBD recognizes that standardized tests measure information learned. Insofar as individuals have relatively equal access to information, the amount of information learned indexes individuals’ ability to learn, ability which is conditioned, at least within races, by both environmental and genetic influences.

      Sophisticated HBD also recognizes that whether or not groups have relatively equal access to information can be tested statistically through multi-group confirmatory analysis. If differences between groups are due to differences in access to information then the relationship between manifest scores and latent variables will be different between groups from the relationship within groups (i.e., there will be psychometric bias and score differences will be measure non-invariant). (Measure invariance means that between group differences are of the same psychometric nature as within group differences, which would not be the case if there were systematic differences in access to information between populations. For a technical definition of MI: “Mellenburgh (1989), Meredith (1993), and Meredith and Millsap (1992) provided a statistical definition of [Measure Invariance]. Namely, an observed score is said to be measurement invariant if a person’s probability of an observed score does not depend on his/her group membership, conditional on the true score. That is, respondents from different groups, but with the same true score, will have the same observed score.”)

      Sophisticated HBD then is skeptical about the meaning of international differences. It feels that international test scores broadly support a hereditary hypothesis insofar as they index differences in the types of societies that groups seem to be capable of building — but it doesn’t naively take the international score differences as representing actual international latent ability differences. This is why sophisticated HBD focuses on intra-national scores differences. And, more so, on group differences for which measure invariance has repeatedly been shown to hold. (Sophisticated HBD doesn’t fixate, in a neurotic sense, on the US B/W gap, but merely focuses on it because, unfortunately, there is little good accessible data when it comes to other groups in the US or in other nations.)

      Now, given what sophisticated HBD is, it is not disturbed, in the least, by the results you note. In fact, its practitioners are well aware of them. All sophisticated HBD is, is annoyed at Naive HBD, which seems to have little grasp of the complexity of psychometrics. That said, it is even more annoyed at anti-HBD which is either naive or sophistical, but rarely sophisticated. Anti-HBD, especially sophistical anti-HBD, doesn’t even try to clarify these issues but rather engages in obfuscation. And this obfuscation hinders sophisticated HBD’s exploration of the issue.

  2. Marlo says:

    Chuck said: “This is why sophisticated HBD focuses on intra-national scores differences. And, more so, on group differences for which measure invariance has repeatedly been shown to hold.”

    How do you know when measure invariance has repeatedly been shown to hold?

    [You review the literature — as I have.]

    How do you know that there are not systematic differences in access to information between U.S. blacks and whites during, say, early infancy?

    [MGCFA shows that score differences are not conditioned on race. As such, the causes of the between race — in the U.S. — difference are a subset of the causes of the within race differences. Since within race differences are partially environmentally conditioned, between races differences, could, in principle between, fully environmentally conditioned. As such, one has to look at the larger body of the research. I reviewed this elsewhere.]

  3. Matt says:

    If I get the theory, the idea is that testosterone decreases relative encephalization, and cooler climates required relatively greater encephalization.(in terms of mass and energy use), thus a decrease in testosterone was adaptive.

    But does testosterone actually do this? There are growth hormonal changes that could plausibly decrease the body budget (through lower mass or metabolism), leaving more for a brain budget, but I am not sure there is any evidence that testosterone is this.

  4. Since the degree of sexual dimorphism in the human visual phenotype differed between populations and races, I wouldn’t be at all surprised should psychometrics pick up upon the same evolutionary processes. I predict the most obviously self-domesticated phenotypes to have the lowest sexual dimorphism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s