You said that you neither reject nor embrace the “essential” explanation for the existence of very few “excellent female scholars.”

I think you need an IQ of 120 to write a good scholarly article on a relatively complicated subject in the Gemara, and in this area there are already more men than women. If we say that the average IQ in Israel is 95, then that's 4% of the population. And women in this field are not necessarily drawn to being Abaye and Rava. So I wouldn't expect to find many of them.

As for narrowing the gaps in other fields, that's not my impression. I'll put it this way – If that were the case, I think I would see a lot less false hagiographies of Rosalind Franklin. They would concentrate on all the female achievements in the present instead of diving into the past and rewriting history.

I don't like to comment on the level of the statistical argument presented here, and wonder if this is a fake writer. 🙂

What's not nice, R’ Miki? Well, help a stray Jew. The Tzurba of Rabbin Demarachmin Lia Bani Mata is not because of the demeli tefi but because it is not proven in the divine words. And I am not really a Torah keeper and mitzvot, so this is the closest to the divine words I have.

The assumptions seem completely reasonable to me. Read Real Education by Charles Murray. The discussions there indicate that an IQ of 120+ is required to understand (real understanding) college-level content in America. Many issues in the Gemara are more complicated than that.

The statistical matter also seems simple to me if you accept the assumptions, but from all my educated teachers. The distribution of IQ is normal, standard deviation 15 points, so (120-95) divided by 15 is 1.66. Put this into a z-score calculator and it turns out that P(x>120) is 0.048 (which is actually closer to 5% than 4%, but I don't think that's what you meant :D).

One of the main problems in statistical thinking is not the calculation, but its relevance. Sometimes when a person uses learned formulas, he feels and also seems very wise and right and convincing, and sometimes his formula is not even wrong. The problem is that it is not relevant to the discussion. More than once (also here on the site) I have argued that mathematical and logical generalization has a great virtue but that is also its weakness. The generalization of an argument has great persuasive power. The formal argument seems overwhelming. People just forget to check the generalization itself, that is, whether the formal form indeed expresses the problem we are dealing with. In many cases, this is not the case. Therefore, with regard to mathematics, statistics and logic, I treat it with respect and suspicion. After this important introduction, I will return to your words.
You take on the one hand the average of the abilities required in college’ American (120 is a hysterical overestimation in my opinion) and puts the scholarly peak against it (anything below that really doesn't require a 120 IQ, in honor of the Torah). This is ridiculous and trending of course. Toll as an example reflects more the studies of computer science, physics, or mathematics for a second or third degree, and check there specifically the success of women, and especially the trend over the years (because there are still remnants of the constructions, etc. For example, women in religious education almost never go to science and mathematics). The abilities required there are no less than those required for a good scholar (and in my opinion even exceed them). I'm pretty sure you're in for big surprises.
See, for example, how many high-tech stars have been rising in recent years. Not yet as many as men of course, but the trend says a lot. Of all this, we haven't ruled out essentialism of course, but the evidence for essentialism is far from us. And I haven't even mentioned that the definition of essentialism itself is unclear (let's say that when we make a large average across the entire population, we will get differences. So what? There is also a wide distribution of abilities among men. There may still be masses of women who are suitable to be the greatest of their generation in scholarship and science).
Important lesson: It is worth putting aside the agenda when formulating arguments, and testing them carefully and not biasedly. Tested and proven.

Oh, well, if you don't agree with the assumptions, then the calculations are probably irrelevant. Regarding the "hysterical overestimation", read Marie's book when you get a chance, I didn't pull that figure out of thin air.

I agree that the required abilities are similar. The trend in the Western world is to aggressively inflate female achievements in the above fields. But maybe in Israel there are "big surprises" (I doubt it).

I read his book sometime ago (wasn't it written by two people?)
He claims that the standard deviation for men is greater than for women
But I don't agree with you that to write a reasonable Talmudic article you have to be extremely smart, it's enough to plow a lot
In my time in the yeshiva I saw enough calves who manage to catch talent through perseverance

@y0534372487,

You're probably thinking of an older book he wrote with Richard Herrenstein, The Bell Curve. That book drew the ire of liberals for its focus on racial differences (and that book has the same status as Mendelssohn's writings in Haredi society - few have read it, but everyone somehow knows what it says and why the author should be stoned).

To write a reasonable article you don't have to be particularly smart. But to write a great article that demonstrates a real understanding of the subject - I think you have to be a smart guy (of course you also have to persevere).