What do you mean by 'allowed'? Why should it not be allowed?

Probably the lack of "These results should be interpreted with caution and do not necessarily indicate genetic causes of the differences."

I would interpret it as a sarcastic comment on the perception of reporting of sex differences.

No differences in intellectual ability are allowed between human genders and races, unless induced by the environment.

The study doesn’t clarify that the difference is due to discrimination, which is why it’s unclear why the statement was allowed.

Factcrime. Statcrime. Bad-mind. Science felonies. Death penalties. Spit facts from electric chair melodies.

Often people are a little more careful reporting these kinds of outcomes, but it seems okay here.

Undergrad psychology programs tend to have more female than male students, so their first result may be related to the second.

No, it's not allowed, because this is pseudo-science. For future reference you can detect pseudo-science very easily because pseudo-science is just the formalization of non-observable entities.

The "scientist" in this study posit the existence of many non-observable entities: "mathematical intelligence", "nonmathematical intelligence", "systemising mechanisms" and "empathising mechanisms" and "lawful systems." Then he posits a theory which relates these entities -- which, again, are not observable or real in any sense. Finally he collects real data to support his theories about all these imaginary entities. Now, data is always good, but you can see the problem here?

No attempt is ever made to ground any of this in observable reality. It's garbage in, garbage out, from the get go.

Unfortunately this sort of pseudo-science, as we've seen time and again, can be seized upon by all manner of propagandists eager to push their narrative. That's why this sort of nonsense -- which is non-sense in the purest form because we cannot observe or measure any of the entities supposedly at work here -- is very popular with the public but is regarded very suspiciously by actual scientists.

Can you explain what you mean by 'observable' and 'real'?

As I understand it, most science involves using instruments to measure quantities that fit into some simplified model of the world. How does this differ?

> formalization of non-observable entities.

Like most of mathematics and computer science?

Mathematics is not science nor would any mathematician claim to be a scientist. Pseudo-science necessarily adopts a scientific pose hence the name.

None of this is particularly controversial but you can see by the downvotes how committed people are to their various self-serving narratives.

> None of this is particularly controversial

Judging by the fact that most maths degrees are listed as science degrees, it's pretty clear that "mathematics is not science" is a controversial claim.

I don't think that's true. Certainly among the people in my department while I was doing my PhD in mathematics, it was universally agreed that mathematics is not a science (because mathematicians don't do experiments as a part of their work).

Even outside of math departments I see some evidence of that agreement -- for example, why else would the "STEM" acronym list Science and Math separately?

> Judging by the fact that most maths degrees are listed as science degrees

How colleges categorize their departments has an element of politics to it, so I wouldn't pay much attention to that. I've got both a math and science degree, and none of my professors or peers would consider math to be part of science -- even considering our math department was listed under our science department. I think OP is correct that this topic is not controversial at all, at least among the people who actually do math and do science. There's no question that math and science are completely separate things.

Isn't "self-serving narratives" an unobservable? Aren't you heading down the path of your self-described pseudo-science?

This is exactly why this kind of simplistic positivism is far from uncontroversial, and in fact saying that it is uncontroversial betrays an almost perfect innocence of epistemology. Once you subscribe to it, it becomes impossible to talk about very many things that we need to talk about.

> you can see by the downvotes how committed people are to their various self-serving narratives.

How can you see this purely based on downvotes?

He's positing the existence of a non-observable entity.

I've encountered this viewpoint before and it took me a while understand the nuance of the assertion - as it is so matter of fact it is easy to take "not a science" as a value judgement - especially as we often enshrine empirical thinking.

As with all things though, it comes down to definitions and with the more specific and academic understanding of science, it is easy to see how (pure) mathematics isn't a science. Indeed, a lot of computer science somewhat doesn't fit well as a science - like FP.

It's quite a controversial statement that can be construed as aggressive which is probably why you're getting downvotes but I think you're right to point out how confronting your own assumptions/axioms can bring out strange reactions.

What are you talking about? WAIS-R arithmetic score is an observable entity.