My point is that it's sloppy (or misleading) when you are presenting a statistical analysis to quote the range of variation as being large without calculating and stating the variance. The range is largely meaningless, while the variance is telling.
Then just say that, instead of substituting the missing value with a sloppy and misleading calculation of your own. There were only 52 values to start with, and you can't non-randomly reject half of the sample size and pretend that the result has any meaning.
The study did cite their source, with the expectation that anyone wishing to check their work would use that, rather than Table 2.
When you realize that we agree on this you'll be one step closer to understanding my position.
I understand your position, thanks anyway.
Similarly, this
Next, we tested the greater male variance hypothesis.
If true, the variance ratios (VRs) for all
countries should be greater than unity and similar
in value.
is a complete misrepresentation of the natural greater male variance explanation, based on the assumption that this explanation excludes the possibility of any non-biological effect on performance, as well as the assumption that if the explanation were true for any group it must be true for all groups around the globe. I don't agree with these assumptions.
In this way, the authors essentially argue that the evidence they have purportedly demonstrated in support of a nurturing effect absolutely contradicts any natural discrepancy. However, it only contradicts a nature-ONLY discrepancy. Just because nurture is effective, doesn't mean biology plays no part.
In order to determine what the natural VR ratio should be, we have to try and strip away or control for the other contributing factors to that measurement. This study did not do that. The authors demonstrated that VR varied across populations, and jumped to the conclusion that the natural VR simply must be 1.0. Maybe it is, but that has not been demonstrated by the study. To do that is a much more ambitious undertaking, with difficulties I alluded to in earlier posts.
The authors say nothing about what a natural VR should be, other than to say that if the greater male variance hypothesis is true, then it should be demonstrable throughout wide cross-sections of the human genome... and national cross-sections will do very nicely, because they encapsulate a vast enough sample size that any individual nurturing/opportunity gaps should cancel out, leaving us a data set that is normed for the cultural and biological group.
Then they go on to observe that under improved gender equality conditions, VR approaches 1. This says when cultural conditions are equal, so are performance results. If there were a biological component involved, this should not be true... some inequality in results should remain despite equal opportunity. Therefore, the greater male variance hypothesis is false.
I do agree that their statement about VR being "similar in value" across nations does take things too far, and does argue for a "biology only" position. Some fluctuations due to social influences should be present. But if gender equality means that VR approaches unity, then that is a powerful "not biology at all" argument. And that's what the data shows.
