Thankyou for those largely unreferenced articles. To understand what I'm trying to say, you have to have an understanding of what an actual experiment paper reads like. They publish the exact results they got from the test, and they publish all the comparative statistical tests they subjected the results to. If they find a difference between the two, then they suggest how the results relate and don't relate to similar studies, and then they decribe reasons why their own study was flawed.
What less scientifically minded people do then, is find one paragraph of what is usually a several thousand word analysis, and they sensationalize it. They ignore all the experimenters reasons why the results may be skewed, they ignore all the contradicting studies that the experimenter would have referred to in the very same paper, and they run with it.
You say that you were referring to abilities that are affected by physical differences in the brain. These abilities ARE a psychological matter. Not only can we not prove differences in ability exist, we will never be able to prove that if there are differences in ability, that they are related to any physical differences in the brain. Even in the articles you gave links to, which would hold absolutely no credibility in the science world, use words "suggest", "may result", "typically", "usually", "generally", "contributes", "tend to" "can be". None of these words denote proof. Because proof can simply never be found. Patterns of behaviour, are simply that that, patterns. It does not mean the pattern is always followed, and it does mean that the pattern is not reversible. And it gives NO causation for the pattern, only correlation.
Thankyou for those largely unreferenced articles. To understand what I'm trying to say, you have to have an understanding of what an actual experiment paper reads like. They publish the exact results they got from the test, and they publish all the comparative statistical tests they subjected the results to. If they find a difference between the two, then they suggest how the results relate and don't relate to similar studies, and then they decribe reasons why their own study was flawed.
What less scientifically minded people do then, is find one paragraph of what is usually a several thousand word analysis, and they sensationalize it. They ignore all the experimenters reasons why the results may be skewed, they ignore all the contradicting studies that the experimenter would have referred to in the very same paper, and they run with it.
You say that you were referring to abilities that are affected by physical differences in the brain. These abilities ARE a psychological matter. Not only can we not prove differences in ability exist, we will never be able to prove that if there are differences in ability, that they are related to any physical differences in the brain. Even in the articles you gave links to, which would hold absolutely no credibility in the science world, use words "suggest", "may result", "typically", "usually", "generally", "contributes", "tend to" "can be". None of these words denote proof. Because proof can simply never be found. Patterns of behaviour, are simply that that, patterns. It does not mean the pattern is always followed, and it does mean that the pattern is not reversible. And it gives NO causation for the pattern, only correlation.