This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sex differences in psychology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Discussions:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 30 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kdanjuma ( article contribs).
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My edit was reverted on November 21 on adding the case of David Reimer to the gender reassignment section. While I am not usually a proponent of single cases, the particular case of David Reimer is ubiquitously well-know and unique in the medical literature in regards to gender reassignment. No similar cases are known where gender reassignment happened in similar circumstances to a completely healthy infant with no sexual differentiation disorder. The section lacks content and has been "expand section" tagged which was one of the reasons for my contribution. Until or unless there are rigorous studies or research on gender reassignment (which is highly unlikely for ethical reasons), I believe that the case or Reimer serves its purpose for the section of gender reassignment. 147.129.136.33 ( talk) 18:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The Sexual Strategies Theory by David Buss and David P. Schmitt is a comprehensive evolutionary psychology theory regarding female and male short-term and long-term mating strategies which are argued to be dependent on several different goals and vary depending on the environment. Men and women are predicted to have both similar and different strategies depending on the circumstances. For instance, long- term mating could result in female selection of consistent behavior in males. [1] The theory included many predictions that could be empirically tested. The theory is argued to have received extensive empirical support in subsequent research. It has also been developed further. [2] Terri D. Conley et al. has argued that other empirical evidence support smaller or non-existing gender differences and social theories such as stigma, socialization, and double standards. [3]
- ^ Schuett, Wiebke; Tregenza, Tom; Dull, Sasha R. X. (2009-08-19). "Sexual selection and animal personality". Biological Reviews. 85 (2): 217–246. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00101.x. PMID 19922534.
- ^ Buss, David Michael; Schmitt, David P. (2011). "Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism". Sex Roles. 64 (9–10): 768–787. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3.
- ^ Conley, T. D.; Moors, A. C.; Matsick, J. L.; Ziegler, A.; Valentine, B. A. (2011). "Women, Men, and the Bedroom: Methodological and Conceptual Insights That Narrow, Reframe, and Eliminate Gender Differences in Sexuality". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 20 (5): 296–300. doi: 10.1177/0963721411418467.
I've removed this paragraph to avoid placing undue
WP:WEIGHT on the theories of individual researchers, or on non-mainstream theories; while this paragraph uses
WP:WEASEL words to describe the theory, there's no indication here of its actual standing of among mainstream scholars. I've also
added a summary of the use of
evolutionary biology and other theories to explain gender differences in human sexuality, so the topic is currently well covered in the article. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 04:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
We will be improving the "Controversy" section over the next week as part of the LSE project "Genes, Brains and Society". J.birch2 ( talk) 11:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
User:J.birch2, Flyer22 Reborn was quite correct to revert these changes, even though I understand it must be frustrating when you notice this happening. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core standards, and to provide for this, citations to reliable sources should be added for all assertions added to the article. The research to find reliable sources and create citations for them should be done prior to writing the content you wish to add; in fact, it has to be that way, because if you are writing without having first consulted reliable sources, then your addition would be considered original research, which is prohibited. The policies and guidelines for adding content to articles that are subject to WP:MEDRS are even more stringent than for topics not in this field. Content that is added without required referencing may be removed by other editors; you may see this happening within hours, minutes, or even seconds, if someone happens to be online and notices it because the article is on their watchlist. There are a few approaches you can try, any of which will prevent further problems of this kind going forward, and avoid the frustration of having your students' edits undone, so I put them out here for your consideration:
Some of the things you mentioned you were working on or that could stand improvement, like "improved tone" are not in the same league as verifiability issues; your content can go into the article with tone problems, bad grammar, typos, awkward phrasing, and a host of other sins, and get fixed up later, either by you, or by someone else. However, if content goes in without proper sourcing to a reliable source, then it may properly be challenged and removed, and should be. If you find a lot of reverts happening to content added by students in the class, may I respectfully suggest that you consider one of the bulleted proposals above. If I can be of any assistance to you in making your project a success, please don't hesitate to contact me here, by {{ ping}}ing me, or by writing to me on my talk page. Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 13:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
References
"Women are twice as likely as men to use emoticons in text messages"
Would this be relevant in this article? Benjamin ( talk) 19:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, women cry more than men in wealthier, more democratic, and feminine countries. [1]
- ^ van Hemert, Dianne A.; van de Vijver, Fons J. R.; Vingerhoets, Ad J. J. M. (2011-11-01). "Culture and Crying: Prevalences and Gender Differences" (PDF). Cross-Cultural Research. 45 (4): 399–431. doi: 10.1177/1069397111404519. ISSN 1069-3971.
I've removed this. The source, a research paper, is a primary source for the claims made. Per WP:MEDRS, we generally rely on secondary and tertiary sources such as review articles and textbooks for scientific and/or medical claims. "On the other hand" is textbook WP:SYNTH. Besides which, the authors seem to be using their own idiosyncratic notion of "feminine countries". Even if this were duly weighted with more high-level sources, this concept would need explanation and attribution. Femininity is generally considered (rightly or wrongly) a property of individuals, not countries. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Source 68 is down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animusel ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Are there any specific ideas on how I can improve upon this article? Acates07 ( talk) 21:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Acates07
I propose to merge Gender psychology into Sex differences in psychology. These articles have the same scope ( WP:DUP), or if there is some slight difference I can't perceive, they nevertheless significantly overlap. If each article was expanded to featured article, they would continue to discuss the same topics as each other. They also do not represent different perspectives on the issue; both cover biology, cognition, sociocultural influences and history in essentially the same way, and I can only assume that they would continue to do so for the other content in each. While gender and sex are different concepts, both of these two articles are discussing both concepts (with both primarily discussing sex), which is in line with how the literature approaches them in this subject area. Continuing on from that, the literature does also most commonly use the term sex differences, and generally the topic is primarily referring to sex not to gender. This is the basis of my proposed direction for the merge. The name Sex differences in psychology is also more consistent with similar articles - e.g. other psychology articles Sex differences in memory, Sex differences in cognition, and Sex differences in intelligence, and the "parent" article Sex differences in humans. Cheers.-- Xurizuri ( talk) 08:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Sex differences in psychology#Empathy is also covered within two other articles: Sex differences in emotional intelligence#Empathy and Empathy#Sex differences. It would make a lot more sense to combine these three as they have a duplicate scope, following the conventions of WP:SUMMARY. That is, the section would exist primarily within one article, and the other two articles would summarise the section.
I propose that the three sections are merged into this article, under the existing section Sex differences in psychology#Empathy. This should be the primary location of the section because of the size of the resulting section.
While this situation isn't the typical definition of a merge, it's the closest thing to it that I can think of. As such, I plan to follow the merging procedure for this. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 12:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are several sections that give a single sentence of information. There is a link to a different article within, but would it not be easier to put more information within those sections rather than a link to a different page? RyCo13 ( talk) 17:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agrewal246 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Danielletjm2001, Zelki, Bmallery99.
— Assignment last updated by Rahneli ( talk) 02:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I encourage Agrewal246 to discuss the content they wish to change and/or include here. As I mentioned in my recent edit summary, there were numerous issues with this large edit. I've partially reverted it a second time, but retained a couple of solid grammatical fixes made by this editor. The other aspects of this edit do not seem to me to be improvements, and would need to be discussed individually before they can be re-added. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nhaley11 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Esay02, Cyngao, BingoBongoBungo, A5phan.
— Assignment last updated by BingoBongoBungo ( talk) 23:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sex differences in psychology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Discussions:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 30 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kdanjuma ( article contribs).
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My edit was reverted on November 21 on adding the case of David Reimer to the gender reassignment section. While I am not usually a proponent of single cases, the particular case of David Reimer is ubiquitously well-know and unique in the medical literature in regards to gender reassignment. No similar cases are known where gender reassignment happened in similar circumstances to a completely healthy infant with no sexual differentiation disorder. The section lacks content and has been "expand section" tagged which was one of the reasons for my contribution. Until or unless there are rigorous studies or research on gender reassignment (which is highly unlikely for ethical reasons), I believe that the case or Reimer serves its purpose for the section of gender reassignment. 147.129.136.33 ( talk) 18:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The Sexual Strategies Theory by David Buss and David P. Schmitt is a comprehensive evolutionary psychology theory regarding female and male short-term and long-term mating strategies which are argued to be dependent on several different goals and vary depending on the environment. Men and women are predicted to have both similar and different strategies depending on the circumstances. For instance, long- term mating could result in female selection of consistent behavior in males. [1] The theory included many predictions that could be empirically tested. The theory is argued to have received extensive empirical support in subsequent research. It has also been developed further. [2] Terri D. Conley et al. has argued that other empirical evidence support smaller or non-existing gender differences and social theories such as stigma, socialization, and double standards. [3]
- ^ Schuett, Wiebke; Tregenza, Tom; Dull, Sasha R. X. (2009-08-19). "Sexual selection and animal personality". Biological Reviews. 85 (2): 217–246. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00101.x. PMID 19922534.
- ^ Buss, David Michael; Schmitt, David P. (2011). "Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism". Sex Roles. 64 (9–10): 768–787. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3.
- ^ Conley, T. D.; Moors, A. C.; Matsick, J. L.; Ziegler, A.; Valentine, B. A. (2011). "Women, Men, and the Bedroom: Methodological and Conceptual Insights That Narrow, Reframe, and Eliminate Gender Differences in Sexuality". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 20 (5): 296–300. doi: 10.1177/0963721411418467.
I've removed this paragraph to avoid placing undue
WP:WEIGHT on the theories of individual researchers, or on non-mainstream theories; while this paragraph uses
WP:WEASEL words to describe the theory, there's no indication here of its actual standing of among mainstream scholars. I've also
added a summary of the use of
evolutionary biology and other theories to explain gender differences in human sexuality, so the topic is currently well covered in the article. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 04:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
We will be improving the "Controversy" section over the next week as part of the LSE project "Genes, Brains and Society". J.birch2 ( talk) 11:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
User:J.birch2, Flyer22 Reborn was quite correct to revert these changes, even though I understand it must be frustrating when you notice this happening. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core standards, and to provide for this, citations to reliable sources should be added for all assertions added to the article. The research to find reliable sources and create citations for them should be done prior to writing the content you wish to add; in fact, it has to be that way, because if you are writing without having first consulted reliable sources, then your addition would be considered original research, which is prohibited. The policies and guidelines for adding content to articles that are subject to WP:MEDRS are even more stringent than for topics not in this field. Content that is added without required referencing may be removed by other editors; you may see this happening within hours, minutes, or even seconds, if someone happens to be online and notices it because the article is on their watchlist. There are a few approaches you can try, any of which will prevent further problems of this kind going forward, and avoid the frustration of having your students' edits undone, so I put them out here for your consideration:
Some of the things you mentioned you were working on or that could stand improvement, like "improved tone" are not in the same league as verifiability issues; your content can go into the article with tone problems, bad grammar, typos, awkward phrasing, and a host of other sins, and get fixed up later, either by you, or by someone else. However, if content goes in without proper sourcing to a reliable source, then it may properly be challenged and removed, and should be. If you find a lot of reverts happening to content added by students in the class, may I respectfully suggest that you consider one of the bulleted proposals above. If I can be of any assistance to you in making your project a success, please don't hesitate to contact me here, by {{ ping}}ing me, or by writing to me on my talk page. Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 13:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
References
"Women are twice as likely as men to use emoticons in text messages"
Would this be relevant in this article? Benjamin ( talk) 19:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, women cry more than men in wealthier, more democratic, and feminine countries. [1]
- ^ van Hemert, Dianne A.; van de Vijver, Fons J. R.; Vingerhoets, Ad J. J. M. (2011-11-01). "Culture and Crying: Prevalences and Gender Differences" (PDF). Cross-Cultural Research. 45 (4): 399–431. doi: 10.1177/1069397111404519. ISSN 1069-3971.
I've removed this. The source, a research paper, is a primary source for the claims made. Per WP:MEDRS, we generally rely on secondary and tertiary sources such as review articles and textbooks for scientific and/or medical claims. "On the other hand" is textbook WP:SYNTH. Besides which, the authors seem to be using their own idiosyncratic notion of "feminine countries". Even if this were duly weighted with more high-level sources, this concept would need explanation and attribution. Femininity is generally considered (rightly or wrongly) a property of individuals, not countries. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Source 68 is down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animusel ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Are there any specific ideas on how I can improve upon this article? Acates07 ( talk) 21:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Acates07
I propose to merge Gender psychology into Sex differences in psychology. These articles have the same scope ( WP:DUP), or if there is some slight difference I can't perceive, they nevertheless significantly overlap. If each article was expanded to featured article, they would continue to discuss the same topics as each other. They also do not represent different perspectives on the issue; both cover biology, cognition, sociocultural influences and history in essentially the same way, and I can only assume that they would continue to do so for the other content in each. While gender and sex are different concepts, both of these two articles are discussing both concepts (with both primarily discussing sex), which is in line with how the literature approaches them in this subject area. Continuing on from that, the literature does also most commonly use the term sex differences, and generally the topic is primarily referring to sex not to gender. This is the basis of my proposed direction for the merge. The name Sex differences in psychology is also more consistent with similar articles - e.g. other psychology articles Sex differences in memory, Sex differences in cognition, and Sex differences in intelligence, and the "parent" article Sex differences in humans. Cheers.-- Xurizuri ( talk) 08:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Sex differences in psychology#Empathy is also covered within two other articles: Sex differences in emotional intelligence#Empathy and Empathy#Sex differences. It would make a lot more sense to combine these three as they have a duplicate scope, following the conventions of WP:SUMMARY. That is, the section would exist primarily within one article, and the other two articles would summarise the section.
I propose that the three sections are merged into this article, under the existing section Sex differences in psychology#Empathy. This should be the primary location of the section because of the size of the resulting section.
While this situation isn't the typical definition of a merge, it's the closest thing to it that I can think of. As such, I plan to follow the merging procedure for this. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 12:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are several sections that give a single sentence of information. There is a link to a different article within, but would it not be easier to put more information within those sections rather than a link to a different page? RyCo13 ( talk) 17:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agrewal246 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Danielletjm2001, Zelki, Bmallery99.
— Assignment last updated by Rahneli ( talk) 02:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I encourage Agrewal246 to discuss the content they wish to change and/or include here. As I mentioned in my recent edit summary, there were numerous issues with this large edit. I've partially reverted it a second time, but retained a couple of solid grammatical fixes made by this editor. The other aspects of this edit do not seem to me to be improvements, and would need to be discussed individually before they can be re-added. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nhaley11 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Esay02, Cyngao, BingoBongoBungo, A5phan.
— Assignment last updated by BingoBongoBungo ( talk) 23:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)