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?
Well, I'm not sure that's particularily relevant to my hypothetical, but assume that they are biologically more stupid. In today's climate no one would dare say it, even if, legally and morally, it wouldn't change a thing.
Well, I'm not sure that's particularily relevant to my hypothetical, but assume that they are biologically more stupid. In today's climate no one would dare say it, even if, legally and morally, it wouldn't change a thing.
I'm not sure what you mean... Do you mean models more consistent with the body of literature? Obviously I disagree, for the reasons listed above. I'm unaware of any human studies that can control for social learning for these skills. Neonates are adequate for very primitive skills only. I would say that at this time there is no compelling evidence of a physiological difference between sexes that produces meaningful performance outcomes for learnable skills such as STEM.
Given that there is abundant evidence for social influence, as a matter of parsimony I believe that the burden of proof is on those who want to support that claim.
Yes, I didn't mean literally no one. But it'd be political suicide, for instance, for a presidential candidate to even aknowledge that. Look at how people are starting to deny that sexual dimorphism is even a thing.
Yes, I didn't mean literally no one. But it'd be political suicide, for instance, for a presidential candidate to even aknowledge that. Look at how people are starting to deny that sexual dimorphism is even a thing.
I have to wonder about the "evidence" provided there. One of them is an article about the compositions of school maths teams and the other is to American test scores. But the latter one in particular can't be considered particularly reliable if it is evidence that gender is the cause, as international scores of the gender gap in mathatics varies considerably with the Scandamavian countries almost equal and some other countries such as Malta, Albania, Trinidad and Lithuania actually showing female scores being higher than those of males. I got this from the Wikipedia page which I cannot link to for some biZarre reason.
The evidence* seems to indicate that they are better (on average of course; some girls are very good and some boys not so good). The question is, is it just natural or is it because girls are "discouraged" by society or something like that? Natural aptitude seems like the simplest explanation to me.
I just don't see much compelling evidence for social factors being the main cause of this disparity. Some people claim that math is stigmatized as unfeminine. It's also claimed here that it is a problem that there are disproportionally few women in mathematics. But without explaining why this is inherently a problem. It seems like an ideological position, not a pragmatic one. In a way, it also devalues traditional female gender roles by implying that areas that have been traditionally dominated by men are the most important and valuable.
Anyway, I don't believe that "stigma" explains it. I think that girls who excel at math are much more likely to be praised and encouraged about it by teachers and parents than told "don't do that; it's unfeminine". Who are these people who are discouraging girls from excelling at math?
And if the causes are not mainly sociological, then aren't efforts to eliminate the "gender gap" doomed to failure? Trying to make math "pink" or "girly" won't help, but neither will removing a "stigma" that doesn't actually exist. And instead of trying to push more girls into areas they aren't naturally suited for in order to meet some other person's arbitrary notion of what the ideal ratio of women to men should be in a given field, why not let them self-sort and let the chips fall where they may? Those with a natural interest and aptitude for math or science can choose to go into those fields, and those whose interests and aptitudes lie elsewhere can choose to follow whatever path they think is best for themselves.
It's not necessary to watch this documentary to participate in the thread, but I think it's a very good exploration of the debate over nature vs. nurture (it's not narrowly focused on math ability, btw). Both sides, the nature people and the nurture people, are given opportunities to make their case. It's a documentary from Norway called The Gender Equality Paradox and there should be subtitles.
Embedded:
Anecdote from my time at my engineering university: In my starting year, the only department with anything resembling a balance between male and female students was the department of applied mathematics.
There is, and they do. Evgenia Malinnikova being a notable exception to the rule.
But that is only one end of the bell curve. As I noted earlier, men also dominate the other end of the bell curve as well. Which of course completely refutes your claim. The average is pretty close to the same. Well within statistical error. Also the range between individuals is much larger than the differences between sexes. So generalised statements like you made, "Men are better at math" are always wrong. You could however say that men are both better and worse at math, with the average being nearly the same.
There is, and they do. Evgenia Malinnikova being a notable exception to the rule.
But that is only one end of the bell curve. As I noted earlier, men also dominate the other end of the bell curve as well. Which of course completely refutes your claim. The average is pretty close to the same. Well within statistical error. Also the range between individuals is much larger than the differences between sexes. So generalised statements like you made, "Men are better at math" are always wrong. You could however say that men are both better and worse at math, with the average being nearly the same.
But that is only one end of the bell curve. As I noted earlier, men also dominate the other end of the bell curve as well. Which of course completely refutes your claim. The average is pretty close to the same. Well within statistical error. Also the range between individuals is much larger than the differences between sexes. So generalised statements like you made, "Men are better at math" are always wrong. You could however say that men are both better and worse at math, with the average being nearly the same.
That's a great graph actually. You probably don't know it, but it is actually proof of what I was saying. Notice how the left end of the graph starts rising again? What you have there is a good part of the curve, but with the bottom end clipped off. Why? Because the bottom end is FAR more likely to NOT take the SAT test, as they are far less likely to go to college. Extend that curve and you'll see exactly what I was referring to.
If you have to go digging for the data from the special needs students to have evidence that boys and girls are equal, I'm not really sure if that sounds too good for girls, to be honest. ...lol
ETA: It appears that 200 is as low as the scale goes with the SAT, with 800 being the max.
Also, as has been mentioned that is just the American SAT results. Results for similar college acceptance tests from other countries show a much smaller disparity between male and female results.
Conclusion: It's primarily a socio-cultural phenomena.
Also, as has been mentioned that is just the American SAT results. Results for similar college acceptance tests from other countries show a much smaller disparity between male and female results.
Conclusion: It's primarily a socio-cultural phenomena.
I don't know if I buy Red Baron's assertion about the bottom end of the bell curve, which he presented no actual evidence unless I missed it. But I would be interested in data from other countries if it is available. In Japan, I don't think there is a test equivalent to the SAT, which is a de facto national standard. Most colleges have their own tests here.
I did read the abstract you posted earlier but the main article is behind a paywall. I found a news article that suggests the gap may be reversed in China, but it lacks hard numbers because the Chinese don't publish those statistics:
That is that a significantly larger number of females than males take the SAT: 884 thousand females to 776 thousand males. A difference of 108 thousand. It's not because females in the population outnumber males, if anything it should be the opposite at that age. So maybe if another 100 thousand males took the test who aren't taking it, they would bring the male average down.
That is that a significantly larger number of females than males take the SAT: 884 thousand females to 776 thousand males. A difference of 108 thousand. It's not because females in the population outnumber males, if anything it should be the opposite at that age. So maybe if another 100 thousand males took the test who aren't taking it, they would bring the male average down.
It's the part of the population that is clipped off the graphic. As I mentioned earlier, the low end is less likely to go to college or take SATs. The average overall is almost exactly the same, but the standard deviation of the bell curve varies. In the case of SATs which only sample the top end of the curve, there is a misleading result that might make one assume men are better at math than women. But add the bottom end, and they are also seen to be dominating the bottom as well. Again, average being almost identical.
That's a correlation though. For causes it isn't so simple. I would agree that there can be social and cultural factors, but I would contend the sexual dimorphism is a greater factor. ie that the sexual dimorphism actually is partly responsible for the social and cultural factors and overall is the primary factor.
I wish I could give you better references, but when I Googled to find the information where I learned this (various science journals I had read in libraries over the years)...it was awash in a sea of impossibly ridiculous woo internet sites. I have neither the time nor the patience to dig through all that woo from both sides of the controversy to find a good source for you. I am very sorry. I realise now I shouldn't have even posted without first finding a source to back up my information. This is a skeptic's forum after all. No one takes anyone's general education as relevant here. My bad.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Which of course completely refutes your claim. The average is pretty close to the same. Well within statistical error. Also the range between individuals is much larger than the differences between sexes. So generalised statements like you made, "Men are better at math" are always wrong. You could however say that men are both better and worse at math, with the average being nearly the same.
