Are boys naturally better at math?

[DarthFishy]

I did find one thing about the SATs here now that is making me rethink it a bit:

http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2013/TotalGroup-2013.pdf

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.

Yeah that is quite interesting and I think it might support Red Baron Farm's hypothesis.

 

[DarthFishy]

What is it secondarily?

I would say secondarily it's physiological factors. Exactly to what extent and what the actual mechanisms are I'm unsure of.

 

[Earthborn]

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.

That would rather depend on what way and how fast those social attitudes evolve. I am not convinced they have evolved as fast and as radically as you think they have.

Because social attitudes can (and do) change more readily than biology.

Social attitudes certainly can and sometimes do change quickly, but they can also have amazing staying power. The idea that different abilities align with sex is a very old one, and has never really been away.

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.

Perhaps that's because in the healthcare industry there are plenty of men at the top of the hierarchy. Looking at the average yearly income of in this table, it seems that these fields have lots of low paying jobs. These fields in which women dominate don't seem to be top jobs. A low-level technical job at Facebook or Google likely gets you twice as much.

Still, the "unfeminine stigma" thing, I just haven't seen much evidence of this. Is it a peer thing?

Partially, yes.

I just can't imagine a teacher or parent discouraging any child from being the best they can be in all academic areas.

You don't have to imagine it, you can see it happening with your own eyes. That of course does not mean parents and teachers necessarily try to discourage a child. It is often just the case that parents and teachers have their own biases when they try to determine what a child is good at and likes to do.

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.

Questions are not necessarily neutral; the way you ask a question may imply the expectation of a particular answer. I think with regard to issues that may be controversial, we need to be extra careful what sort of questions we ask, and how we formulate them.

We also may need to critical of the motivations a person may have for formulating a particular question. If someone wants to correlate math ability with sex, we should ask why this person think this particular biological difference is so interesting as opposed to any other way humans can be grouped. Why not study the difference in maths ability between curly and straight haired people, dry and smooth earwaxed people... There are infinitely many ways people can be grouped into categories, so there is likely a reason someone chose one grouping over another.

It is likely that someone chose a particular grouping because he/she specifically tries to find a difference between one category and another. If he/she then seems to find exactly what they were looking for, we should be critical and try to find out whether the researcher's biases may have influenced the outcome.

Not sure though how well controlled that study is.

The only study mentioned in that article concludes that there isn't much evidence that girls do better in all-girl schools.

 

[Minoosh]

Going on nothing but anecdotal data (i.e. time spent with kids learning math) I've seen stronger spatial skill from boys and stronger verbal skills in girls. Both contribute to math performance.

On a side note, again anecdotal, I think what I call "math phobia" may be on the decline in the U.S. Among younger students I am not hearing the "I can't do math" meme. It's a subject like any other and while I tend to work with "underperforming" students they don't just shut down during math instruction.

When students are pulled into small groups it's much easier to see if they might be consistently making errors that have escaped notice in larger groups. I loosely define a "power" as "multiplying 3 by itself 3 times" and one student consistently got 3⁴. Verbally it was an understandable error. Saying "3³ equals 3 x 3 x 3" might be a better explanation. The point is the misconception could be quickly clarified when it was detected. Girls maybe, maybe might be influenced by genes or socialization to be more cautious in life and therefore academics.

It might take a while to manifest itself but I believe overall potential is equally distributed across the genders. That potential is so multifaceted that I don't think one trait makes a big enough difference to declare a winner.

 

[Mark6]

Until 1940's the word "computer" meant "a person whose job is to do many long, tedious calculations" -- and almost all "computers" in the Western world were women! Women did things like calculating artillery tables and star charts -- the very things electronic computers do today. A (usually male) engineer or astronomer would define an algorithm, and women would do the calculation. Which could involve anything up to calculus and differential equations -- it was not just addition/multiplication. Women were not expected to do mathematical breakthroughs (although some women did), but to say in 1915 that "women are bad at math", would have been as crazy as to say "men are bad at driving". Dude, what? Sure, most women do not do math, but most people who do math ARE women!

It is truly remarkable how in the span of about two generations (after electronic computers were invented) the whole nonsense about "women bad at math", let alone "math phobia" has emerged.

 

[stevea]

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,

Reluctance to discuss this topic for three very different reasons. It might reasonably offend and upset members of the population considered low IQ or low performing. It can bring out a lot of despicable sexism, racism or tribalism. It brings out a lot of criticism from groups that prefer to shape and control speech rather than address topics honestly. I assume you refer to the last reason.

even if, legally and morally, it wouldn't change a thing.

+1, but especially politically. But you would not even need to mention this obvious fact, except that some dishonest proponents attempt to control & manipulate speech on this topic. If instead you were arguing that poodles are more intelligent than beagles, then a comment that both should be treated humanly would be an off-topic diversion.

Yes it's a topic that invokes a lot of denial. Some political ideologies cannot accept the concept that genetic or cultural differences lead to different outcomes. Why believe your lying eyes when ideology is truth ?
--

There is btw, some decent evidence that the (by race) effects are cultural or sociological rather than genetic. Reportedly there is no IQ differentiation among US Blacks with more vs less European ancestry. Also reportedly Blacks raised in White households do much better academically, until adolescence when they might be expected to adopt culturally expected roles as Blacks [ I can't help but think of Obama and the Choom gang].

I suspect the female deficiency in math scores may also be social rather than inherent, but there seems less evidence on the topic.

===

I find this paper interesting.
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cresp/pdfs/Boe-Shin PDK horserace article.pdf
Phi Delta Kappa is a professional education association.

Table 4 in particular suggests that the extremely poor academic performance of US Blacks and Hispanics not only explains any poor ranking of US academic results compared internationally, but that we might usefully consider discussing "what is wrong with Western G5 (G7 minus US & Japan, mostly Caucasian) academic performance vs US Caucasians ?".

===

So here is the conundrum.

If we assume that poor female showing in math or poor Black performance on IQ tests or remarkable poor Hispanic academic performance is a cultural artifact, then what precisely does this imply should be done ?

I have no appreciation for the notion that government has any role at all in enforcing or changing cultural norms. Particularly I find the Sunstein/Thaler premise of using government to surreptitiously manipulate behavior reprehensible. Manipulating females to act more male, or Blacks act more White (or preferably more Asian) is totally unacceptable to anyone with even the least objection to totalitarianism. Government has no legitimate role in advancing any normative view.

IMO Government may have a role in observing and presenting evidence for what may cause various outcomes, but the decisions to make changes based on that evidence is not a place for government.