Okay, I made a bunch of mostly grammatical corrections <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4NGOBcoYImfQ1JlS1VwMGJVNDg/edit">here</a>
;. The notes below refer to some of the changes in the file, which are marked.
Regarding sexual dimorphism in IQ, you are basically assuming that genetics is the likely explanation. Of course, IQ is not entirely genetic, and African-American women have had somewhat <a href="http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2012/04/racial-amplitudes-of-scholastic.html">improving
SAT scores</a> relative to African-American men over time. It might be good to mention alternative cultural explanations, like machismo, male-dominance of underground economy pulling men from educational pursuit, family or community breakdown, post-colonial loss of order, differences in economic structure that favor heavy manual labor, etc. You could integrate this with the brain versus brawn dichotomy, but you could emphasize how your predictions based on evolutionary theory fit the data so well.
Don't use sex as an adjective. Use sexual. Maybe "sex differences" and keeping quotations intact are exceptions, but I think consistency should be favored when possible.
Avoid nested parentheses.
Write 0 before decimal points or at least be consistent.
Write out acronyms and name symbols upon first usage, followed by their acronym or symbol in parentheses. (PISA, g)
Line 11 & 257:
I don't think it is clear to say sexual selection increases the phenotype value. I think it is better to say that sexual selection increases the prevalence of a favored phenotype. Only mutation creates novel phenotypes.
"Supporting" would be dangling modifier of "average country male height."
Reserve passive verb tense for avoiding first person.
Check where quotation ends.
Intersexual competition would be boys vs. girls.
It's debatable whether warriors have high status historically, especially in recent history, so say in antiquity.
The following two statements did not have sources:
"Moreover, men in antiquity performed endeavours such as hunting and making war against other tribes or nations, actions which require greater fluid intelligence and strategic planning, and the best warriors and hunters have traditionally enjoyed a dramatic boost in status, which would have translated into better reproductive success."
"Moreover, since sexual selection operates more strongly on males, a greater reduction in variance should be observed in males than in females."
I'm not a psychologist, but I have read that fluid IQ is disputed (Johnson and Bouchard, 2005). I wonder if you should defend the concept briefly or drop the word fluid and just call it intelligence. Even if you accept it, there are problematic aspects to it, such as its higher Flynn effect. Also, there is a perception that women undergo sexual selection to make them less intelligent. I don't know if that's true, but it might be a reason to either add sources or qualify these statements ("might operate more strongly on males").
"Finally, although even natural selection results in lower phenotypic variance for the trait under selection, it does not necessarily predict sexual dimorphism for that trait, which instead fits better with a model that includes sexual selection."
I would completely remove this because I think sexual selection is a subset of natural selection, or perhaps the two are not mutually exclusive.
Line 112 & 290:
Didn't IQ alleles fail to achieve GWAS statistical significance? Avoid "he" when referring to self.
"Assessment assesses" is awkward.
Take out the.
Adding the's makes for consistent use of nouns as labels.
Take out "in."
Wikipedia is not a primary source, and it is always being edited, so readers can't verify your data in the future. I see that the page is a great resource, and each data point comes from a different source, so I don't think it is absolutely necessary to cite each source, but I also would consider it a big improvement, if you did.
Line 178 & 248:
Remove "Confirming expectations." Results section should avoid commentary.
Widen "Difference" to fit one line. Add units where appropriate in headings (GDP). Give description of table after "Table 1." Edit out empty cells. I split the table to do this just for a page break.
Use consistent capitalization with table descriptions. Borders need to be consistent and no empty cells except corner.
I recommend putting notes outside of table.
I recommend describing regression methodology in methods section.
Table 4 & 5:
Remove empty cells.
I think "is" is too definite. I would prefer "seems to be."