[Siri]

Sorry to double, but I just want to say that I don't intend to assume anfrcguy is deliberately misrepresenting these studies or the consensus quote. I don't know their age or STEM background, and I'm willing to suspect this poster simply made a legitimate error in conflating findings of gender differences with theories of physiology. It's an understandable mistake, particularly as a layperson when reading a site like Wikipedia. The measure of one's scientific integrity is not who is correct first, but who is most willing to address to new findings.

To everyone interested in engaging on the scholastic research here, that is certainly your right and can be a very valuable experience. But do remember, as I think we sometimes forget, that most of the adults in this discussion are STEM professionals in our own right who don't blink at titles like "Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices are influenced by sex differences on spatial ability" and "Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta-Analysis". We can understandably digest these articles relatively easily versus students or laypeople. Heck, I have undergraduate students that might mistakenly interpret the former's abstract as a physiological assertion, though I'd hope they then ask how the authors could've isolated physiology/genetics from environmental/experiential factors.

Anyway, no maliciousness meant. I hope this discussion is a learning experience for everyone, both on handling professional digital relationships and on scholarly discourse--regardless of your incoming or outgoing views.