I'm not the one who started by pointing to Wikipedia. ;)

"the burden of proof is on those who claim that women and men don't exhibit cognitive dimorphism"

As for example Maccoby, Eleanor Emmons, and Carol Nagy Jacklin, eds. The psychology of sex differences. Vol. 1. Stanford University Press, 1974? And the additional analysis by Janet Hyde in papers like "How large are cognitive gender differences? A meta-analysis using! w² and d.." American Psychologist 36.8 (1981): 892? (Plus more recent work. Those citations come from the full paper behind the link I posted previously, which lists many more references.)

There's a century of work on this topic. Some say there are differences, others say there aren't any. The ones that say there are differences don't seem to be that reproducible. There's publication bias as well - someone finds a difference, but when the test is repeated the difference decreases or even disappears. This is expected for the reasons behind http://xkcd.com/882/ and elaborated in that 1974 reference as:

> We shall return now to the importance of the null hypothesis - to point with some alarm to the tendency for isolated positive findings to sweep through the literature, while findings of no difference, or even later findings of opposite results, are ignored. Studies with nonreplicable[sic] positive findings are reprinted in books of readings, cited in textbooks, and used to buttress theories about the nature of the development of sex typing.

along with a quote about their hypothesis for why beliefs about cognitive sex persist:

> An ancient truth is worth stating here: if a generalization about a group of people is believed, whenever a member of that group behaves in the expected way the observer notes it and his belief is confirmed and strengthened; when a member of the group behaves in a way that is not consistent with the observer's expectations, the instance is likely to pass unnoticed, and the observer's generalized belief is protected from disconfirmation. We believe that this well-documented process occurs continually in relation to the expected and perceived behavior of males and females, and results in the perpetuation of myths that would otherwise die out under the impact of negative evidence.

Or there's papers like Feingold, Alan. "Cognitive gender differences are disappearing." American Psychologist 43.2 (1988): 95. If cognitive gender differences are innate, and easily measurable, then there wouldn't be a change over time. That there's a decrease says they are either not innate or not easily measurable.

You wrote: "So, we can see that the mainstream is in error: even if it turns that there is such evidence, the mainstream doesn't generally demand it. (Indeed, those who do demand it risk censure for their beliefs.)"

Are you kidding me? There's a bajillion people who say there's evidence for cognitive sex differences. Here's one citation:

> '"Educational systems could be improved by acknowledging that, in general, boys and girls are different," said David Geary, MU professor of psychological science. "For example, in trying to close the sex gap in math scores, the reading gap was left behind. ..."' Quote from http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2013/0313-internati... . Author's home page http://psychology.missouri.edu/gearyd .

How has this person been censured?

The paper is freely available. It points out that there are measured sex differences, and in hypothesis #3 that it might be "biological in origin, see pp.291–294, pp.411–412 of [10]", but "At this point, we have no definite answer to what can explain the correlation, which means that it requires further study."

And that's the issue - there is evidence of differences, but there isn't strong or significant evidence that those differences are biological in nature. But it's very easy to see the difference and assume it must be biological.

I see that you reference popular science books and lectures as basis for your decisions. Moreover, all of those resources came from a single person. That is not rigorous. Pinker could be misinterpreting the data and you wouldn't know.

Where is the primary data? How are the experiments done? What confounding effects might be in the data? How reproducible is it? Can you point me to some of the peer reviewed literature?

I looked at the 'human universals' link. It immediately made me distrustful, since the first one is "environment, adjustments to". All life adjusts to the environment, so this isn't particularly special for humans. It's like saying that eating and defecating are human universals; while true, I note they aren't on the list.

But there's easily things in there which are not universal. My cousin doesn't prefer sweets. There are people who feel no pain (congenital analgesia). Those without thumbs/hands/arms have no thumb sucking. Yet those people are obviously human. More likely, these "universals" are not actually universal, no?

Or take "males dominate public/political realm"? How universal can that be given that Andorra and Rwanda have respectively 50% and 56% female parliamentarians? If there ever is a country with a majority of female politicians across all levels, would this mean Pinker's universals hypothesis is completely false? Or would the list be adjusted to fit whatever is the current conditions?