Are boys naturally better at math?

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't know. One thing I've noticed is that women I've known in my studies, many of whom have been quite good at math, have had a tendency to understate their understanding, and in general been withdrawn and contemplative. On the other hand, a lot of guys I've seen have been incredibly overconfident in their abilities while achieving only moderate results at best. This, I think, is a socialized behaviour. I imagine that when a slight overconfidence and talent coincide, that can result in success or at least a career choice focusing on the subject.

But for the above reasons, I very much prefer studying together with women...

 

[Puppycow]

It's one thing to note a correlation, you need to specify a mechanism as well.

I'll make an analogy: do you believe that smoking cigarettes causes cancer? Do you know the precise mechanism by which smoking cigarettes causes cancer? And is the link so 100% nailed down by science that we can say exactly what happens on a molecular level that causes cancer?
So, in my case, no, I don't know the precise mechanism by which by which smoking causes cancer. I think there's chemicals in the smoke that interact with chemicals in our bodies in a way that causes it, but I can't get more specific than that. Nevertheless, I believe the hypothesis that it does.

In your case you need to specify a biological or physiological difference between boys and girls that explains the difference. If you you cannot specify such a mechanism then an opposing hypothesis (i.e. the "stigma" or social factors hypotheses") is equally valid.

OK, so here again as with the analogy I gave above, I don't know the precise mechanism or physiological difference that explains it. I can point in the general direction of things like a different mix of hormones or possibly differences in the structures of the brain which is something that neuroscience is just beginning to scratch the surface of.

Your OP seems heavy on opinion and light on evidence, especially evidence of a biological mechanism that causes this difference.

ETA: There's a lot of unsupported suppositions in this thread and little in the way of evidence for these opinions.

OK, well it is a forum post and not a peer-reviewed research paper or even a Wikipedia article^{[Citation needed]}. I'll confess that these are opinions. This is about how I perceive things based on the evidence available to me. I expected to be challenged and maybe you can convince me that I'm wrong. I have been known to change my mind when presented with compelling evidence.

 

[psionl0]

I very much prefer studying together with women...

ftfy.

 

[Puppycow]

To all: I'll try to respond to more posts as I have time. Sorry if I haven't responded to yours yet.

I'm calling Betteridge's law on the thread title.

Please explain why you think this the simplest explanation.

Well, for one thing, if it was only social factors, I would expect to see the gap narrow faster than it has as social attitudes evolve and become more progressive. But it appears that the gender gap in SAT scores in the chart in the second link in the OP above has remained remarkably stable over time (it has narrowed slightly, but only by a few points). Because social attitudes can (and do) change more readily than biology.

I don't see how that follows. Just because someone notices that women are underrepresented in one field does not devalue traditionally feminine fields. That same person may in fact argue that in traditionally feminine fields men are underrepresented, and that that's a problem equally worthy of adressing.

I see a lot of commentary about how few female employees there are at tech companies such as Apple, Google and Facebook, and people say that this is a problem that should be fixed (e.g., here). I don't see anyone saying that there aren't enough men employed in the healthcare industry even though this important and growing industry seems to be just as lopsided in favor of women.

Please explain what you base this thought on. Even if true, there is evidence that the way a person is praised for something also affects how they perform in a task.

You may have a point there regarding the manner in which children are praised. Still, the "unfeminine stigma" thing, I just haven't seen much evidence of this. Is it a peer thing? I just can't imagine a teacher or parent discouraging any child from being the best they can be in all academic areas.

You may be one of them, by suggesting that they might be "naturally" worse at maths than boys.

I doubt it. But what you seem to be implying is that we can't even ask these questions because the mere act of asking the question harms girls. If I get shouted down for asking the question I will learn to keep my mouth shut, but I will still perceive things the same way.

No. Even if the difference is primarily genetic, genes are not destiny. It may just mean that kids with a particular genetic profile may need a bit of extra tutoring.

Could be. I have heard for example that girls seem to do better at all-girl schools. Not sure though how well controlled that study is.

Sure, just make sure everyone is taught equally well regardless of gender, by teachers who themselves have no biases as to who is "naturally" more inclined to maths. And while we're at it, improve maths education in general because it is not often very good.
Sounds like a good plan, but it may be hard to implement.

Agreed.

 

[DarthFishy]

I'll make an analogy: do you believe that smoking cigarettes causes cancer? Do you know the precise mechanism by which smoking cigarettes causes cancer? And is the link so 100% nailed down by science that we can say exactly what happens on a molecular level that causes cancer?
So, in my case, no, I don't know the precise mechanism by which by which smoking causes cancer. I think there's chemicals in the smoke that interact with chemicals in our bodies in a way that causes it, but I can't get more specific than that. Nevertheless, I believe the hypothesis that it does.


OK, so here again as with the analogy I gave above, I don't know the precise mechanism or physiological difference that explains it. I can point in the general direction of things like a different mix of hormones or possibly differences in the structures of the brain which is something that neuroscience is just beginning to scratch the surface of.


OK, well it is a forum post and not a peer-reviewed research paper or even a Wikipedia article^{[Citation needed]}. I'll confess that these are opinions. This is about how I perceive things based on the evidence available to me. I expected to be challenged and maybe you can convince me that I'm wrong. I have been known to change my mind when presented with compelling evidence.

This is something of interest to me professionally (I am actually supposed to be finalising a paper on mathematics and programming aptitude), so I apologise if I came across a little strong.

I think the problem with your analogy is that we have a better idea of what causes cancer from smoking (tar and other carcinogens in the cigarettes) than what we do with mathematics and gender. Obviously if there is a correlation it is something that should be investigated.

The problem is not so much that without a mechanism we can't show correlation, its more that without a mechanism any other suggested mechanism is equally valid.

We also have to remember that there are some many "common sense" beliefs that we have that are actually based on incorrect or plainly fraudulent knowledge (the whole only using 10% of our brains is a perfect example). For this reason we need to be careful of these kinds of unsupported beliefs, and regard them with some skepticism. They might have some basis in fact but without sufficient support or evidence for this they can do more harm than good.

I will admit my own "common sense" bias that I believe that on average there is no statistically significant difference between the genders in terms of cognitive ability due natural or physiological factors. I am interested in this topic to test my own bias, so thank you for being willing to open up this can of worms!

 

[3point14]

Are there physical differences between the male and female brain?

 

[DarthFishy]

Are there physical differences between the male and female brain?

From a quick glance on the web it appears as if there is a size (volume) difference with male brains being approximately 10% bigger (on average).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040300/

Of course volume on its own is not necessarily indicative of intelligence or anything really as another paper notes that:

It shows that the cortical ribbon is actually thicker in some brain regions in females, despite the fact that females tend to have smaller bodies, and smaller brains, including smaller overall gray and white matter volumes than do men

http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/7/1550.full

There seems to be quite a bit more, but the biological aspects of these articles are a bit beyond my field of expertise!

The question now becomes if these differences are statistically significant overall and here I'm not sure what to conclude.

 

[3point14]

From a quick glance on the web it appears as if there is a size (volume) difference with male brains being approximately 10% bigger (on average).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040300/

Of course volume on its own is not necessarily indicative of intelligence or anything really as another paper notes that:



http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/7/1550.full

There seems to be quite a bit more, but the biological aspects of these articles are a bit beyond my field of expertise!

The question now becomes if these differences are statistically significant overall and here I'm not sure what to conclude.

Thank you for that. I really should have done it myself.

My, very vague, point being, that if we could establish that male and female brains are physically very similar then a social or conditioning reason is perhaps the most likely.

If we could show obvious differences between male and female brains, particularly in those areas that light up when adding up, then a physical difference would perhaps be most likely.

 

[DarthFishy]

Thank you for that. I really should have done it myself.

My, very vague, point being, that if we could establish that male and female brains are physically very similar then a social or conditioning reason is perhaps the most likely.

If we could show obvious differences between male and female brains, particularly in those areas that light up when adding up, then a physical difference would perhaps be most likely.

I was going to say you should google it but I was kind of interested myself.

While I'm looking:

In China, there are no gender differences in mean college entrance examination math scores among high-school seniors, while in America, the mean SAT-Math score among male high-school seniors has been consistently higher than those of their female counterparts.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-007-9044-2

(I think you can read the full article online, but download it is behind a paywall)

I think the difference between a similar measure (SAT scores and college math entrance exams) from two different cultures, shows that the difference between boys and girls (and men and women) in terms of mathematical ability is a socio-cultural phenomena. I think this is very interesting when you take Chinese One-Child policy into account, even though I'm not really sure exactly what effect that has had!.

 

[Puppycow]

Are there physical differences between the male and female brain?

Here's what I found by googling:

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

Recent studies highlight a long-held suspicion about the brains of males and females. They're not the same. So how does the brain of a female look and function differently from a male's brain, and what accounts for these differences?

Disparities Start Early in Life
Scientists now know that sex hormones begin to exert their influence during development of the fetus. A recent study by Israeli researchers that examined male and female brains found distinct differences in the developing fetus at just 26 weeks of pregnancy. The disparities could be seen when using an ultrasound scanner. The corpus callosum -- the bridge of nerve tissue that connects the right and left sides of the brain -- had a thicker measurement in female fetuses than in male fetuses.

Continues.
So, not just a size difference, but differences in how they work. And there are some ways in which the female brain works better, they mention too. Just not math and geometry.

 

[Belz...]

You must have a death wish starting a topic like this.

My thoughts exactly. Let's make-believe for a second that there'd be a study, replicated and proven beyond reasonable doubt, that showed that women are, on average, dumber than men. Now, if this were to happen, it wouldn't justify treating women worse than men, and certainly wouldn't justify not giving them the same opportunities and education, but it sure would mean that, on average, they wouldn't have the same outcomes. That'd be reality. But no one would dare say it because of the backlash. No, in today's world, everybody is a special and equivalent snowflake, and no one ever fails.

'Course, in real life, I can't say I've seen evidence that women are worse at math. Personally I think they may just not be sa interested in the kind of hard-science, abtract stuff that gets Nobel prizes as men. On average.

It is often said (not sure how true,) that women are better at multi-tasking then men.

I've see women multi-task. It's easy to do four things at once when you do them each at 25% quality.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you for that. I really should have done it myself.

My, very vague, point being, that if we could establish that male and female brains are physically very similar then a social or conditioning reason is perhaps the most likely.

If we could show obvious differences between male and female brains, particularly in those areas that light up when adding up, then a physical difference would perhaps be most likely.

Lots of biochemistry involved, too.

 

[blutoski]

This is something of interest to me professionally (I am actually supposed to be finalising a paper on mathematics and programming aptitude), so I apologise if I came across a little strong.

I think the problem with your analogy is that we have a better idea of what causes cancer from smoking (tar and other carcinogens in the cigarettes) than what we do with mathematics and gender. Obviously if there is a correlation it is something that should be investigated.

We also have the fact that even though the poster doesn't know of any mechanisms, the relevant experts are aware of mechanisms, and our 'common knowledge' that smoking is a proximal cause of lung cancer is derived from demonstrated scientific facts. This is in stark contrast to the hypotheses that a) women are materially worse than men at math, and b) this is mostly a biological predisposition. Both of these are undemonstrated scientifically from what I can see.

The problem is not so much that without a mechanism we can't show correlation, its more that without a mechanism any other suggested mechanism is equally valid.

Or possibly even more valid, if there's better evidence for it. There are tons of studies showing social impact, but none showing a gender based genetic predisposition, and in fact, the few studies that attempt to explore biological predisposition (which is not necessarily genetics btw) come up with a weak correlation and other confounding problems (specifically, I'm thinking of the Minnesota Twin Studies that explore vocational interest and achievement in mono/di/adopted siblings raised together and apart). So why would a gender based predisposition be given equal validity at this time, since its evidential support is so poor?

We also have to remember that there are some many "common sense" beliefs that we have that are actually based on incorrect or plainly fraudulent knowledge (the whole only using 10% of our brains is a perfect example). For this reason we need to be careful of these kinds of unsupported beliefs, and regard them with some skepticism. They might have some basis in fact but without sufficient support or evidence for this they can do more harm than good.

I will admit my own "common sense" bias that I believe that on average there is no statistically significant difference between the genders in terms of cognitive ability due natural or physiological factors. I am interested in this topic to test my own bias, so thank you for being willing to open up this can of worms!

Part of the static around this topic is about what people think is the hypothesis that bears the burden of proof. Based on the body of literature I'm familiar with so far, I also feel the biological claim not only carries the burden of proof, but attempts to do so have not been very successful.

 

[deaman]

Are men better at math than boys?

Are some people better at math than other people no matter which gender?

 

[blutoski]

Here's what I found by googling:

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/how-male-female-brains-differ


Continues.
So, not just a size difference, but differences in how they work. And there are some ways in which the female brain works better, they mention too. Just not math and geometry.

It's hard to evaluate that link, since they don't cite one single study or describe Gur Denckla and Geary's qualifications or credibility. It's just basically relaying their opinions, it's what's called a "fluff piece."

I've brought it up before: I use a standard Critical Thinking approach to evaluate scientific claims:

• is there a subject of study?
• is there consensus among the experts on this subject?
• is this claimant considered an expert by his peers?
• is this claimant's claim consistent with the consensus of his peers?
• does this claimant have undue conflict of interest?

If I was to review the studies directly (not always a good idea) I would be looking for controls. How do they control for social influence? How do they causally connect observed brain activity or structural differences to real-world performance? Traditionally, we have used neonates or lesions to isolate physiological influences from social ones, which means we are very challenged to connect any physiological property to a behavior in a neurologically healthy person older than a few weeks old.

One of the things I learned during my biopsych education is that the fMRI can show us brain activity, but we're mostly guessing about what that means in terms of cognition, and certainly taking big leaps about what it means in terms of skill performance if the skill needs to be taught or practiced. There's a lot of what's called "modern phrenology" going on in the publish-or-perish world of teams with fMRIs. Also called "just so stories" similar to the sad state of evolutionary psychology.

This article from 2008 has a good overview of the problem: [Greatexpectations:WhatcanfMRIresearchtellusaboutpsychologicalphenomena?]

 

[blutoski]

My thoughts exactly. Let's make-believe for a second that there'd be a study, replicated and proven beyond reasonable doubt, that showed that women are, on average, dumber than men. Now, if this were to happen, it wouldn't justify treating women worse than men, and certainly wouldn't justify not giving them the same opportunities and education, but it sure would mean that, on average, they wouldn't have the same outcomes.

By 'dumber' in this hypothetical example, do you mean perform worse on a valid score for 'dumbness', or do you mean some additional study showing that not only is there a difference in performance, but that there's a physiological reason for it?

Because these are two different problems, and people seem to get them conflated. This was the point of Gould's Mismeasure of Man: social choices can cause measureable outcomes in performance. Blacks really did perform worse on IQ tests a hundred years ago. They had poorer educational opportunities and it showed. There was no biological root cause, but a difference was nevertheless objectively measureable.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Because these are two different problems, and people seem to get them conflated. This was the point of Gould's Mismeasure of Man: social choices can cause measureable outcomes in performance. Blacks really did perform worse on IQ tests a hundred years ago. They had poorer educational opportunities and it showed. There was no biological root cause, but a difference was nevertheless objectively measureable.

Everyone performed worse on IQ tests 100 years ago, but the black-white differential has persisted. Pretty sure even recent studies show blacks score a standard deviation below whites in IQ and that a genetic component can't be ruled out.

 

[blutoski]

Everyone performed worse on IQ tests 100 years ago, but the black-white differential has persisted. Pretty sure even recent studies show blacks score a standard deviation below whites in IQ and that a genetic component can't be ruled out.

Nothing can be "ruled out". It could be aliens, for example.
It's just that some models are better given the current data. That's what Critical Thinking is about.

 

[marplots]

I'm going through a series of lectures on behavioral biology and here's the professor (Sapolsky at Stanford) talking about the "math gene."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG5fN6KrDJE&t=81m20s

I can recommend the entire series though, it's full of nature v. nurture discussions and the problem with categorizing things that way.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Nothing can be "ruled out". It could be aliens, for example.
It's just that some models are better given the current data. That's what Critical Thinking is about.

And the better models suggest the opposite of what you claimed they do. I was just being nice.