|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 01/20/2005 : 21:10:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Regardless of numbers, I am a woman and I have a very good natural ability in math. And, Siberia apparently does as well. So until someone finds the gene on the Y chromosome, or shows how higher levels of testosterone or other hormone differences in men and women result in differing brain structures that specifically affect math abilities, I ain't buying the 'natural' part. Socially, maybe, but not inherently.
There was a guy on NPR last night commenting on this whole thing, citing (as best as he was able to on the radio) studies which show that women are more language-oriented and men more math-oriented. And 7-year-old boys can rotate a pattern in space faster than 7-year-old-girls. But he specifically pointed out that the bell curves overlap, and from what I've seen on the subject, they overlap by a lot, the peaks separated by just a few percentage points. Nothing which would indicate that Ricky's 33-to-1 (or worse) ratio was anything inherent.
More importantly, he claimed there was a study which compared test performances based upon prejudice. One group of students took a math test, and was told nothing about it. Another group took the same test, but was told beforehand that the test was designed to highlight gender differences in math performance. The girls in the second group did worse than the unprejudiced group.
At that point in the radio commentary, all I could think of was Lisa Simpson's Malibu Stacy doll which would say things like "math class is hard." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 05:13:35 [Permalink]
|
| Massimo Pigliucci commented on this on Tuesday, January 18, in his blog. |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 17:16:13 [Permalink]
|
What's interesting is that if the article said, "Women make better field commanders than men" (I think there actually was something that said this), there wouldn't be any fuss. No one is saying women can't be mathematicians or scientists or whatever, simply that its more likely for a man to be good at math.
Anyway, my hypothesis about what women pick to study, is that they are much more socially aware. They are more likely to do things where there is a clear benefit to society. Doctors, teachers, lawyers (hmm...), chemists, biologist. I have done no real research of course, but one day I was reading the lastest issue of Sci Am and there was a little insert for some major scientific award listing winners. I noticed that Biology and Chemistry awards had a high percentage of women. I believe their areas of research were also more obviously useful to people. I cannot remember.
I also wonder if doing these sorts of tests and actually gently encouraging kids into genetically determined gender roles might be beneficial to society. Say women are better at being field commanders due to their multitaskingness say, might their ability to better coordinate attacks lead to fewer casualties? |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 21:41:55 [Permalink]
|
Some mere anecdotes:
Way back when I was in high school, I was in an accelerated math program. The way it worked was that in 7th grade (it was a K-6-6 system) we pushed through the normal 7th and 8th grade math courses; the one year head start left room for a calculus course in 12th grade. In between, we were pushed harder and farther than the students in the same course in the regular program.
The kids who were offered this program were picked because the teachers expected them to have the ability to keep up with the work. The ratio of boys to girls in my math classes was just about 50:50, indicating that our teachers didn't have any preconceptions about sex-linked differences in ability. For that matter, neither did the girls. 
There seems to be a dearth of women in the hands-on sectors of technical work; in over twenty years of working as an electronics technician and fifteen years in the pro audio industry, I've encountered only three women who were in the same line of work. But when I spent some time teaching electronics at a tech school, there seemed to be plenty of women in my classes. Of course, the basic electronics courses were required for the computer geekery students as well; perhaps there's a gender difference involved in choosing between using an oscilloscope and a keyboard. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2005 : 06:57:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
Anyway, my hypothesis about what women pick to study, is that they are much more socially aware. They are more likely to do things where there is a clear benefit to society. Doctors, teachers, lawyers (hmm...), chemists, biologist. I have done no real research of course, but one day I was reading the lastest issue of Sci Am and there was a little insert for some major scientific award listing winners. I noticed that Biology and Chemistry awards had a high percentage of women. I believe their areas of research were also more obviously useful to people. I cannot remember.
That's what I was talking about. It's all good for me, as long as they don't expect me to do the same as the rest. I like biology - love it, really - but I prefer computers and astronomy (which I didn't follow, as there's no interest on it here; but I want to go for it later, y'know, as a hobbie ). |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 02:12:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Regardless of numbers, I am a woman and I have a very good natural ability in math. And, Siberia apparently does as well. So until someone finds the gene on the Y chromosome, or shows how higher levels of testosterone or other hormone differences in men and women result in differing brain structures that specifically affect math abilities, I ain't buying the 'natural' part. Socially, maybe, but not inherently.
There was a guy on NPR last night commenting on this whole thing, citing (as best as he was able to on the radio) studies which show that women are more language-oriented and men more math-oriented. And 7-year-old boys can rotate a pattern in space faster than 7-year-old-girls. But he specifically pointed out that the bell curves overlap, and from what I've seen on the subject, they overlap by a lot, the peaks separated by just a few percentage points. Nothing which would indicate that Ricky's 33-to-1 (or worse) ratio was anything inherent.
More importantly, he claimed there was a study which compared test performances based upon prejudice. One group of students took a math test, and was told nothing about it. Another group took the same test, but was told beforehand that the test was designed to highlight gender differences in math performance. The girls in the second group did worse than the unprejudiced group.
At that point in the radio commentary, all I could think of was Lisa Simpson's Malibu Stacy doll which would say things like "math class is hard."
These are good points I agree with. The overlapping bell curve is a good example. But there was a time when some researchers tried to show cranial size differed among the supposed 'races'. Current genetic evidence shows there are no different human races.
I also have heard about the effect telling kids they will do poorly on tests affects how they do. But as a skeptic, I'm not ready to buy that with what I think was only one study. Many studies show it is true if you tell the teacher the kid will do poorly the teacher acts accordingly. But it's hard to see the mechanism for getting a question right or wrong based on whether or not you've been told you will do well or poorly. I'll believe it if I see enough evidence, but not just because these researchers have been doing the talk show rounds or wherever it is we've been hearing about their results recently. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
