From: Randall Parker 

In article <3929D8B7.A3BEF76E{at}pacbell.net>, sdurrett{at}pacbell.net says...
> And every time there is such a piece of evidence, the people doing and
> reviewing the study note (just as they do in this case) that the
> differences between individuals of either sex are more important than
> the differences between the mythical "average member" of the
two sexes.

What do they mean by "more important"? This has become the
boilerplate poltically correct thing to say.

What is more important depends on where you are looking at it from. Suppose
you are trying to develop a better strain of wheat. And you go out into two
fields that have improved strains. You can say "Hey there is more
difference between individual wheat stalks within a field than there is
between the average of the two fields." What are supposed to do then?
Say that the one strain isn't any better at growing wheat than the other
strain even though one strain on average consistently provides a higher
yield?

From a public policy standpoint should average differences be of no consequence?

> In this case, the principal researcher, Shelley Taylor,
>
>                ... acknowledged that the study
>                could be misinterpreted by some
>                observers as justification for restricting
>                women to more traditional roles.

Which I'm not arguing for at all.

So if there are differences _on average_ between the two sexes is this unimportant?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5