Pharyngula

Posted by: What Goes On | August 7, 2010 3:12 PM

Heh.

It really annoys me how steadfastly society seems to hold these arbitrary ideas of what particular genders "like" and "are supposed to do".

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | August 7, 2010 3:15 PM

I can see the fashion industry jumping in and starting selling to women stylish math-inspired shoes, indeed. And shirts and scarfs and jewels and all sorts of baubles...

Call me an idiot if you must but...

wouldn't such an action actually start to remove the stigma of math as unfeminine?

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 7, 2010 3:21 PM

I know that computer sciences are already coming up with some solutions:

Posted by: yiab.pip.verisignlabs.com | August 7, 2010 3:24 PM

But math already is pink.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 7, 2010 3:28 PM

How about teachers not telling us we don't need to worry our pretty head about anything but add, subtract, multiply and divide, because that's all a good wife needs to know?

Posted by: llewelly | August 7, 2010 3:34 PM

Whore of All the Earth | August 7, 2010 3:25 PM:

Can girls be given stethoscopes and chemistry sets to play with instead of Barbies and easy-bake ovens?

Your evil secret agenda is revealed by your suggestion that girls be given stethoscopes to play with. You want them to grow up to be ABORTION DOCTORS!

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 3:36 PM

What about giving women pregnant with girls hormone treatments to masculinize the behavior and interests of their future daughters?

Oh, wait...

Posted by: skeptifem | August 7, 2010 3:42 PM

llewlly- LOL!!!

whoever said this:

I can see the fashion industry jumping in and starting selling to women stylish math-inspired shoes, indeed. And shirts and scarfs and jewels and all sorts of baubles...

Yeah, but then it would go out of fashion in a season because without a constant change in trends the consumption and profit of the industry would be reduced. It will be unfashionable more often than it is, just like every trend.

Madonna is probably the best example of the problem of progressive ideas in a capitalist society. She would do something sort of feministy/anti religion/pro gay/whatever and then the next minute she would reinvent herself into a familiar stereotype that subverted the previous work. Over and over. She has to in order to keep being "fresh", sellable. It is how she held on to her fame for so long.

Posted by: Kate | August 7, 2010 3:46 PM

With a risk of sounding evil and insensitive again - why exactly is it a problem that there are fewer women in math? I am a woman, and I may have gone into math, if there was any advantage for a human to go into math at all, and the thought of how many women are there would hardly influence my decision. (Though fewer women there is certainly an advantage - it just makes you feel special for no good reason.)
Should we aim to have an equal number of male babysitters or nurses? Again, I don't have a problem with anyone having whatever profession, but is there evidence that an equal number of each sex want to be in the given profession?

I know to most of you the answer is "duuh, you're too stupid if you don't see the answer for yourself," but that just may mean that you don't really have a good answer.

PS, off-topic: More people should be able to do simple math, no question about that! Tired of students not being able to calculate their class grade. Some college education.

Posted by: irenedelse | August 7, 2010 3:47 PM

Whore of All the Earth #7:

Can girls be given stethoscopes and chemistry sets to play with instead of Barbies and easy-bake ovens?

That would be a great start, but beware of the powerlessness of pink...

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 3:51 PM

Also, it helps to present mathematical reasoning as part of the progress of human thought instead of a random group of procedures that one must memorize. Sure, there are procedures to memorize, but it's a whole lot easier if you have a sense of where those procedures came from, why they were an improvement on the ideas that preceded them, etc.

I was greatly amused once when SonSpawn got into an argument with a weird guy at Borders about algebra. SonSpawn talked about the basic idea behind algebra being the use of the equation to solve for unknowns and discussed the Arab origin of the field. The guy, who purported to have a Ph.D. in physics and namedropped almost as much as Kw*k, insisted that SonSpawn was wrong. The guy was a jerk, but did provide a great in vivo demonstration of the argument from authority fallacy.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 7, 2010 3:56 PM

It seems like math is more interesting when integrated into pertinent activities. There are a million of em.

The grocery store was a constant education resource for Casa Aquaria Academy.

Posted by: Zeno | August 7, 2010 4:03 PM

Kate: With a risk of sounding evil and insensitive again - why exactly is it a problem that there are fewer women in math?

It would be nice to have solid research to back this up, but I have a strong sense that women do not feel that taking math or not taking math is really a free choice. Social expectations and peer pressure push them away from it. Counselors (see #17) tell them girls don't need math, as if this is revealed wisdom.

I don't argue that math classes should be 50-50 men and women, but my calculus classes seem artificially skewed when the female component hovers between 25% and 30%. Is the interest level really that low, or are other forces still at work?

Posted by: DominEditrix | August 7, 2010 4:08 PM

I ma reminded of something one of my female science [chem] profs once said at a party:

Women are bad at maths because men keep telling us this: ____________________________________ is six inches.

Admittedly an old joke, but...

As I've mentioned before, I had mathematics teachers who told me that it was OK that I wasn't good at maths, because girls weren't - despite my straight-A grades.

The larger number of non-American female participants in international mathematics competitions, from those countries where women are not discouraged at a young age, suggests that they seem more likely to excel at the subject if people aren't constantly telling them "girls aren't good at that". IMNSHO, telling a girl that is more than likely to set her up for failure: When she reaches a tough problem, the fact that it isn't clear at first look may convince her that she just isn't "good enough" and discourage her from working a bit harder. If she has teachers who accept that as "normal", she's going to give up.

Tho', based on my encounters with cashiers of both sexes who cannot make change - even tho' the fracking cash register shows the correct amount - no one is teaching even basic arithmetic well enough these days.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | August 7, 2010 4:10 PM

Hey, SS. How're things in ass-backwards misogynist land? Fun?

'cause, here in REALITY, women are just as capable of doing math as teh d00ds, and women really DO get told they shouldn't take up left-brain subjects like math.

Gosh, isn't that shocking... people are equaly brained, and society hasn't caught on. Who woulda figured?

Posted by: ecurve | August 7, 2010 4:20 PM

irenedelse@3: Math jewelry? You'd be surprised.

No, what they need to do is make math more chocolaty.

My own theory, based on my own life: girls who are good at math AND good at other subjects receive a hell of a lot more encouragement in the other subjects. Me, I was so good at English that everyone--maybe, even especially, my parents--just assumed I'd grow up to be a writer of some sort. It wasn't until halfway through high school that it occurred to me to think otherwise.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 4:21 PM

Slanted Science, do they teach the distinction between individual and population differences on your planet?

Posted by: doctoratlantis | August 7, 2010 4:24 PM

If we get all feminist and make the dots into 'decifemals'? We don't want to call the dots periods - gross.

I'm thinking without a box.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 7, 2010 4:25 PM

So, how are things working out for you in 1870? I see you have the internets, that's a surprise I must say.

Wow.

Save for replacing the "pretty little head" with "a cute and charming girl like you", that remark was exactly what was said to me. In 1976. Not 1870.

Whatever year it was, it was nevertheless an incredibly insulting and inappropriate thing to say, and don't be so sure it doesn't happen in other, more subtle ways now.

So fuck right off.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 7, 2010 4:29 PM

Oh, SlantedMisogynist has shown up to tell us how it's all because of our weak little lady-brains. Charming.

Kate,

When a profession shows a dramatic difference in the gender ration, it is worth questioning why that is the case? You rightly point out that nursing is disproportionately female. Perhaps there's some sort of stigma against male nurses that prevents more men from pursuing a nursing career? Is the same sort of thing going on in math with respect to women?

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 7, 2010 4:31 PM

Aquaria:

It happens, and I am a ms/phd instead of md/phd... it happens and I fell for it and my patients are seriously probably the better for it.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 7, 2010 4:36 PM

A little thought experiment. Let's assume the following scenario for a moment (using a D&D style):
A) Women, on average, have a +5 in math ability
B) Women, on average, have a +7 in ability X
C) Men, on average, have a +4 in math
D) Men, on average, have a +6 in ability X

These differences in ability can be due to any number of things: wiring of the brain, intrinsic motivation, socialization, etc.

In order to simplify things further, we'll assume that people can only pick one field; either they're in the math field, or field X. Further, we'll assume there are an equal number of jobs for math and X - the number of jobs in this case match the number of people in this hypothetical.

So, when it comes time for people to choose a job, what will happen? You'll see most women taking a job in field X and most men taking a job in math, even if women are better on average at both than men. This is because, even if women are better at math, they're better still at X, making X the natural choice. As the X positions fill with women, the remaining math positions will be filled with men, since, while they're better at X than math, women are better still at X than they are, and will crowd them out.

Yes, this is a simplified hypothetical, but it demonstrates the point well enough.

Saying there's a gender imbalance isn't helpful, since it can be due to any number of things: one sex could be better at math; one sex could be better at an unrelated task; one sex could have more motivation to pursue certain activities; one sex could be more susceptible to social pressures; it could just be inertia - men could tend to enter fields that are relatively filled with men and women the same.

This could go on, but I'm sure you get the point

The idea that you can judge how much social stigma is attached to a job by how many people of each sex get involved in the field is outlandishly stupid - just like labeling it a problem without proof of causation.

Another potential problem may be that women end up being pressured to study a subject - perhaps math, perhaps something else - that they had little interest in the first place because people view a gender imbalance as a problem in need of remedy rather than as the result of individuals deciding what's best for themselves.

To quote Pinker twice: "equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group"

and

"It is unlikely, for example, that among academics the mathematicians are unusually biased against women, the developmental psycholinguists are unusually biased against men, and the evolutionary psychologists are unusually free of bias"

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 7, 2010 4:37 PM

Kate,

Your own personal experience is influenced by the preconceptions of those around you. It can be as simple as a career counselor telling you that a degree in English would be better for you than one in math when you show similar ability in both. The subtle, internalized ideas in our culture about appropriate studies for men and women have dramatic cumulative effects, like very few women making math into a career.

I was specifically denied accelerated math classes in elementary school because I was a girl. The boy in my class with the same scores on the tests was accelerated. This was the early 90s. Things haven't changed enough.

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 7, 2010 4:40 PM

but, but, ... i could have been a contender....

my nieces and my nephews get my money to fulfill their education. . .

I am a contender.

I did not fail.

And no one is ever shunted away where I can help out.

I am. Period. I am.

Human comes to mind . . .

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | August 7, 2010 4:44 PM

First of all SlantedScience, I am dignifying your incredibly arrogant and insulting comment with much more politeness than it deserves. Not because I think I can explain things in simple enough words for you to understand, but for the benefit of any lurkers reading this comment.

As a person whose mathematical abilities extend to being good-at-mental-arithmetic-but-not-the-advanced-stuff, I reckon that 5% of a population being actively disencouraged from learning math cannot explain why the whole population doesn't take it up.

Yet in situations where the bias of teachers are not influencing the students, e.g. homeschooled chilred in Sweden, girls are actually doing better than boys. This would indicate that it's not a question of just ability, but also a question of outside influences. Perhaps a cultural bias against women in science?

Here's a couple of possible reasons:

1) Male brains are better-equipped for mathematical aptitude than are female.

2) Female brains are better-equipped for, eg, learning languages, than are male.

I know that these questions have been studied, but I am not conversant with them. Is anyone here?

There is no evidence that male or female brains, on the whole, work differently. The studies there exist, cannot negate the cultural biases, so they are not really useful.

Personally, I have huge doubts that girls are - since approximately 1980 - influenced away from developing math skills by adults.

That's nice. Of course, these things have been studied, and the conclusion reached by the people who actually are aware of the complexity of the issue, is that there is still a cultural bias against women doing "hard" sciences (e.g. math and physics).

A good book to read on the subject is "Athena Unbound - The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology" by Henry Etzkowitz, Carol Kemelgor and Brian Uzzi (written in 2000).

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 7, 2010 4:49 PM

Pygmy Loris:

Perhaps there's some sort of stigma against male nurses that prevents more men from pursuing a nursing career? Is the same sort of thing going on in math with respect to women?

Actually, the percentage of men going into nursing is higher now than any previous time. It took one hell of a lot of de-stigmatizing though, and there's still a healthy stigma floating around the idea of male nurses. Here in ND, medicine is the one field you can go into with excellent job security. It also allows you to move around the state pretty freely. So, the stigma with male nurses died pretty quickly around here.

The perceptions people carry about "proper" pursuits for one gender or the other are often skewed; unfortunately, there are a lot of teachers and professors out there who aren't providing a wide open field for people.

I still resent having to learn much of higher maths on my own, as I constantly heard "oh, well, you're going to be an artist, you already know what you'll need, mathematically". Ummm, no.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 7, 2010 4:51 PM

Slanted Science and Mr. Fuckwit Naglfar show up, and reduce the average IQ of the postings down into the doubles digits by their presence? What losers. They have had nothing cogent to say, but they still think they can prove it by saying something. Definitely not getting the blatant hints, and definitely not as smart as they pretend to be...

Posted by: skeptifem | August 7, 2010 4:53 PM

Hey Mattir, thank you for the wonderful idea. Discussing math as a story is a great idea!

Slanted Science:

Seriously though: I doubt that more than 5% of the current US schoolaged female population would ever hear such a ridiculous concept proposed, even if it was stated in slightly less stilted language than this obviously made-up sentence.

Come out to Zion, talk to the women here. Then tell me how unlikely it is. The reality is that more than 5% of women are surrounded by people who encourage them to be wife & mothers only.

Then there are girls who don't have to hear it directly, but get the idea from other discouragements. The point is that they feel like their minds aren't important.

this was kinda telling as far as your ignorance of the problem:

So, how are things working out for you in 1870? I see you have the internets, that's a surprise I must say.

It wasn't just the 1870's. Try the 1950's, early 60's. Read about "functional education" on college campuses. Betty Friedman's The Feminine Mystique discusses widespread official proclamations of the sort that you think less than 5% of the female population got exposed to. Women from that time are still alive, and there are still people in powerful places with those ideas. I know a woman who had her professors discourage her from becoming an engineer on exactly those grounds (a man needs the slot in the program, they have to take care of their families).

As a person whose mathematical abilities extend to being good-at-mental-arithmetic-but-not-the-advanced-stuff, I reckon that 5% of a population being actively disencouraged from learning math cannot explain why the whole population doesn't take it up.

Here's a couple of possible reasons:

1) Male brains are better-equipped for mathematical aptitude than are female.

2) Female brains are better-equipped for, eg, learning languages, than are male.

You are acting like the lack of participation in math by women is a fact or something. It is a phenomenon that corresponds STRONGLY with the cultural setting that it takes place in. Girls out perform boys in some countries, not others. Almost every developed country outperforms the US. It isn't a data set that you can justify on those grounds.

I know that these questions have been studied, but I am not conversant with them. Is anyone here?

Well, outside of the fact that culture is a much stronger determinant than gender, there is the fact that we don't know the mechanism or development of math ability in the human brain. We can take people who are good or bad at it, stick em in a scanner to look at their brains, and attempt to conclude something based on the pictures, but the major proof of innate difference (mechanism, how it works, how it gets there etc) is missing. Its pretty fucking worthless shit when it comes down to drawing concrete conclusions about the world.

Even if such a thing could be proved currently, it wouldn't mean discouraging women from pursuing math would be a good idea. The gender binary is blurry and complex- there are people with varying degrees of each component of gender. How male would one have to be in order to be considered "better equipped"? How feminized is a man before he doesn't count anymore? We would have to do a series of medical tests to figure out where everyone falls and then try to exclude based on that. Relying on outward appearance of gender is a really shit way to judge how typical someones genitals are, or what hormonal their make up is, or what their DNA looks like, but outward appearance is what I am encouraged to rely on by people who support those studies. Its crap.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | August 7, 2010 4:54 PM

stack him with the others..

Don't you mean "put him in the sack with the others"?

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 5:00 PM

I'm beginning to understand the total kneejerk reaction that I get if I ever mention any evopsych type subject, no matter how mildly. I'm even beginning to sympathize with the kneejerk shouters. Not that I'll stop pointing out studies on mouse behavior or whatever (we are mammals after all), but I think I'll be very careful to preface any comments with a "yes, I know that culture is far more important for humans than mice and natural does not mean ideal or unchangeable" disclaimer.

It pisses me off that a bunch of sexist and/or racist fuckwits have taken over popular discussion of such an interesting and productive area of inquiry. I'll think of Mr N and SS as I go clean the scum out of the bathroom...

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 7, 2010 5:02 PM

SS,

The "Math class is tough!" Barbie was introduced in 1992, dumbass.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 7, 2010 5:11 PM

LeeLeeOne:
You wanna try making some sense?

I was one of those girls who was just "bad at math". Looking back at it now, though, I'm not sure if it's 'cos I'm not math inclined OR because I was enticed to give up because my language skills were so much better. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a little of both.

Here's a radical idea: when girls are in school, how about we treat them the same way we treat boys and let them follow their strengths and desires? You can probably solve this problem from the ground up by working hard to eliminate social biases.

*sigh* A girl can dream, can't she?

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 5:14 PM

@ Carlie:

How about Math Doesn't Suck, which is quite popular at the moment? DaughterSpawn found it and launched into a feminist screed at knitting a few months ago.

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 7, 2010 5:20 PM

I do make sense... If you care to listen.

Women and men, men and women... there is no"strong point or weak point."

The strong point is what we are good at, the weak point is what we need in improvement.

There is no gender argument. Humans are humans, humans are an animal. We are not a plant. We have the ability to think.

There is no gender. Just species. okay? get it?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 7, 2010 5:22 PM

ODS:

LeeLeeOne:

You wanna try making some sense?

If you're going to wait for LeeLeeOne to make sense, you're going to be waiting for one hell of a long time.

Posted by: Nepenthe | August 7, 2010 5:23 PM

Yet another problem with the idea "Males are on average better at math than females" is that it fails to take into account that real math, as opposed to arithmetic, is not a single skill. Different cognitive skills come into play when solving different kinds of problems. For example, when it comes to algebraic proofs that require step by step deconstructions of a problem, my male peers generally outpace me. When it comes to proofs that require a specific insight, like realizing that object X is really a fucked up example of object Y, I excel.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | August 7, 2010 5:25 PM

There is no gender argument. Humans are humans, humans are an animal. We are not a plant. We have the ability to think.

There is no gender. Just species. okay? get it?

Except of course, that there are genders. Both biologically and as social constructs.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 7, 2010 5:27 PM

LeeLeeOne:

There is no gender. Just species. okay? get it?

Oh man, I'd love to live in your world.

Now, I'll grant you that gender is a societal construct. If you can't see how gender (and society's definition of) defines how we live our day-to-day lives, then you really are a deluded fool.

But we already knew that didn't we?

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 5:30 PM

@Nepenthe -

And a lot of computation is actually a measure of short term attentional resources, so some kids who do badly on mental math might just have less RAM than others.

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 7, 2010 5:32 PM

The fact that you should even be "discussing how to be fair to individual members our species..."

That in itself should be a red flag!

Why should this subject even be a discussion?! Women are better at then men are better at?

Why should this even be a subject?! women versus men, men versus women?!

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 7, 2010 5:34 PM

skeptifem,

My grandmother became one because she didn't enjoy being a mom very much, and that was the most challenging work available (between shit like secretary, flight attendant, school teacher, etc).

You know your little list is a bit flawed. Whereas secretary and flight attendant don't require much education beyond high school, school teacher requires a bachelor's at the least. My mom probably went to college around the time your grandmother did (1964-1968). She basically had two options, nurse or teacher. Choosing education has provided her with a fulfilling career. It is not a shit job, and it allowed her to be home with her kids most of the time we weren't in school (evenings, summer vacation).

Nursing does allow a fair amount of geographic flexibility as Caine noted, and men are going into the field more and more. Women are going into medical school at rates similar to men now, too. Both of these trends are good things.

For that matter, flight attendant was one of the few jobs that allowed women to see other parts of the world, and secretary at least provided women with their own incomes.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 5:37 PM

We are discussing how to be fair to individual members of our species because we do not live in a world in which we treat all members of our species as individuals. Instead, we treat individuals as men, women, black, white, fat, thin, etc. In the reality-based community, we believe that discussion is a means to achieve a world in which individuals are encouraged and judged on their own abilities rather than gender, color, body shape, and other extraneous characteristics.

I would love to live in your world, but I'm scared of the amount of drugs I would have to take to get there.

Posted by: SlantedScience | August 7, 2010 5:40 PM

Well, thanks to those who answered sensibly, and with some self-declared expertise in the subject.

To those who could only respond to my questions with abuse: hi, and meh.

As a general question, has the issue of differences in male/female average abilities within certain hardwired subject areas (math, music, languages, scientific thinking) become absorbed into the impenetrable morass of racial differences?

That is, can we no longer suggest that embryonal and early postnatal levels of CNS-active hormones/other peptides may - irrespective of "nurture" - go a long way towards determining an individual's skills in the 4 areas named above without being called a neopatriarchofascisticbagofballs?

That would be sad. And, amusingly, counterproductive for those who would believe that we are all created equal, as it would deny the chance to investigate the most apt gender-specific ways of teaching these subjects.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 7, 2010 5:43 PM

shoshidge:

Could it be possible? Just this once? That the stereotypes might be based on fact?

Those stereotypes are not based on fact. That's been shown, time after time. Let me guess, you aren't great at reading for comprehension.

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 7, 2010 5:45 PM

Mattir: you do not help, you think that living outside of the "norm" takes one person who is on drugs - of any type, legal or illegal.

Mattir, your thinking promulgates the "wisdom" of the day.

Easy to accuse another. If that is what you wish, then so be it, and discussion is settled.

I accuse no one. Discussion open?!... yes.

Men are not women, women are not men, and children are not adults and adults are not children. I am saying in this day and age, why is this even a point of discussion? Men versus women, women versus men?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 7, 2010 5:46 PM

To those who could only respond to my questions with abuse: hi, and meh./blockquote>Considering that your questions are totally irrelevant and sexist, what else could we expect from a loser. Still waiting for you to say something cogent. Bye-bye would be the most intelligent thing you have said in several months. But you are too stoopid and arrogant to take that approach...

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | August 7, 2010 5:48 PM

Leelee, are you calling women children? Are you saying they have differnet capabilies? No?

Then are you suggesting they're equal? Because that's what we're saying. The problem is, people liek Slanted Science are saying that we're not. We can't just close our eyes and pretend that everyone realizes women are equal; or those people who think they aren't will tell young children they aren't, harming their minds.

Understand?

Also, English? Not your native language?

Slanted Science: No. Women and men have equal capabilites. Just unequal opportunites. If you'd been paying attention (impossible for you, judging from your record here) you'd realize that.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 7, 2010 5:53 PM

@53

but on whether an individual differences can be predicted usefully based on population differences.

I agree with you completely that it often can't. I spent a good deal of time on a previous thread trying to make that exact point. Why does everyone keep assuming all this weird shit about what I think when I don't automatically agree?

Posted by: SlantedScience | August 7, 2010 5:56 PM

@94, Kieranfoy:

Slanted Science: No. Women and men have equal capabilites.

Ridiculous.

Men are more capable than women at developing prostate cancer. Men are more capable than women at producing sperm. Men are stronger than women. Men are faster than women. [Men are better at math than women???] [Men are worse at learning languages than women???]

Do you see how quite obvious differences allow for the existence of more subtle ones?

Posted by: shoshidge | August 7, 2010 5:57 PM

Caine, show me where the hypothesis that the gender difference in math skill has been conclusively shown to be nurture based and I will gladly change my tune.

Posted by: Pen | August 7, 2010 5:59 PM

Well, I didn't 'go into maths', but I like to do some for fun from time to time, and I would like it to be a blue-green color, please.

Without shoes at all...

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 7, 2010 6:04 PM

LeeLee:
As I and others have said, your utopia sounds like an excellent place. But it is not reality.

Yes, this is a human problem. However, we will never get to state of equality if people like you continue to deny that there is a problem based on gender in the first place.

How about you toodle off to the organic barter-only hemp trade show while those of us who can put two coherent sentences together discuss this problem, okay?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 7, 2010 6:04 PM

Why does the mere suggestion that men, on average, might be better at math than women due to innate sex differences, inspire such knee-jerk outbursts of outrage and accusations of misogyny?

Because it's a dead end, and it's a dead end without any actual data supporting it. Since we know that women have been forcibly kept from most fields of study for most of human history, and we know that resumes with women's names get ranked worse than those with men's names, and we know that women are routinely told that they shouldn't pursue certain careers because those are "men's fields", it's slapping us across the face that at least some of that difference is due to societal pressures. There is no way to even study whether the differences are gender-based until those societal factors can be teased out and eliminated as variables. So that's where we're starting.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 7, 2010 6:18 PM

Shoshidge, have you not been reading anything? There are still obvious, measurable societal pressures AGAINST women going into math and engineering. You cannot even begin to hypothesize a physical reason for women's absence until those pressures have been eliminated.

But you know, we're sitting here arguing about the lack of women in math, when male babies are still being circumcised. Why aren't we talking about that instead?
*runs away*

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | August 7, 2010 6:20 PM

I think this thread has clearly demonstrated what sort of attitudes we need to change for women to feel welcome when they want to go into math.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 7, 2010 6:21 PM

shoshidge:
Your argument boils down to: women are equally perusing some fields, so there isn't any inherent sexism at all!

Hey, guess what! Engineering is a math-heavy field! Law isn't! If girls are discouraged from studying math, but encouraged to become professionals, don't you think there would be a disproportionately low number of female engineers, but more female professionals on the whole?

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 7, 2010 6:24 PM

@106

Since we know that women have been forcibly kept from most fields of study for most of human history, and we know that resumes with women's names get ranked worse than those with men's names, and we know that women are routinely told that they shouldn't pursue certain careers because those are "men's fields", it's slapping us across the face that at least some of that difference is due to societal pressures

Indeed, some may be due to social pressure. Some may not be. It does raise the interesting question of why women were able to break through some discriminatory boundaries and not others, as pointed out in 105.

Judith Harris mentioned that same kind of issue in No Two Alike, regarding the application issue. Not specifically that question, but more of the underlying psychology potentially responsible for it.

There is no way to even study whether the differences are gender-based until those societal factors can be teased out and eliminated as variables.

Likewise, there's no way to study whether the differences are based on social pressure - nor how strongly - until you can also control for the genetic. It cuts both ways.

Which is why my position is that people lacking the evidence shouldn't be rushing forth labeling things as problems and loudly stating they know what the solution is and anyone who disagrees is the neopatriarichalfacistbagofballs type mentioned before.

Don't get me wrong (as many people continue to), I'm all for the removal of sexist social boundaries that treat people as representatives of their gender rather than as individuals. I'm also for instilling the idea in people that they should be free to pursue whatever they want, not just what other people think they should. I don't think someone who's bright and very interested in math should be (perhaps even would be) discouraged by others on the basis of their gender (and no, I don't mean that a woman wouldn't be pressured; rather, that if she's very interested I would question how much that pressure would matter).

If someone is unwilling to fight the social tide - no matter how unfair it is - and see going along with the crowd's opinion more their style, well, that's there choice, and I won't begrudge them for it so long as they aren't pissing in my cereal.

That cuts both ways too. It's fairly often now that women get looked down upon by certain sections of society for "only" wanting to be a mother and a homemaker - as if such a thing is completely unimportant - as opposed to getting a high position job that will take up so much of their time they don't get to see their family, if they even have time to have one. In either case, we have different sections of society trying to push people in different directions, based on their gender. In both cases it's a mistake.

How to fix it is a different question. In order to answer that we'd be well served to figure out what the actual causes are first.

Posted by: FaroeseAtheist | August 7, 2010 6:28 PM

Oh, yeah, in case anyone's wondering... "Math" (at a university level, which is the only interesting one) isn't

the integral of x^2 over x=[0..1] is ?

(yeah, can't be arsed to look it up).
It's more like

every continuous function defined on an interval [a,b] can be uniformly approximated as closely as desired by a polynomial function

(Stone-Weierstrass). How much I hated that theorem... but I understood it in the end.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | August 7, 2010 6:28 PM

I have no problem with the hypothesis that "societal factors" contribute to women's under-/over-representation (by gender percentage) in one or more of 4 hardwired fields (math, music, languages, "science").

SlantedScience, where is the evidence of any of those fields being hardwired, let alone all of them? Please, refer to peer-reviewed studies only.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 7, 2010 6:33 PM

Persistence in engineering for men and women depends on grades for women: A link

There's another one I think that does the follow up and found the reasons given for dropping were basically beliefs that they must be "stupid in math" if they got a C or a B, whereas men didn't at all feel they must be "stupid in math" even if they got an F.

Given this, that isn't surprising to anyone except the gender essentialism must be right this time, it's gotta be! brigade.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 7, 2010 6:34 PM

@117

Okay, studies have shown that there is cultural pressure against women in the sciences, studies following women and men in college math classes show that women respond much more finally and dramatically to mid-grades like a B in the maths and sciences because they assume it means they actually were dumb in the subject.

Do you have a citation? I'd like to read that paper.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 6:38 PM

As someone with a law degree and a doctorate in psychology, I would suggest that although women are receiving degrees in those fields that are at or above the percentage of women in the population, there are still severe problems with attrition of female lawyers and psychologists at all stages of these careers. As a society, we may have eliminated some, or even all, of the barriers that kept females from pursuing an education in law or psychology. We have not done nearly so well with eliminating gender barriers in the careers themselves.

In math and engineering, the barriers may extend downwards into the educational segment of the careers, or they may be sufficiently well known that females are dissuaded from pursuing an education in those fields. In other words, engineering and other hard-math fields may be at the point where law and psychology were 30 or 40 years ago. Not all gender bias dissipates at the same rate.

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 7, 2010 6:40 PM

I really wonder...

If you took 100 female newborns and educated them in the field of science only... would they be equal to

taking 100 male newborns and educated them in the field of science only...

No pre-derminations - just simply science.

What would be their outcomes?

I say, humans are humans...

No gender differences.

Then, perhaps, we can move onto species?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | August 7, 2010 6:45 PM

If someone is unwilling to fight the social tide - no matter how unfair it is - and see going along with the crowd's opinion more their style, well, that's there choice, and I won't begrudge them for it so long as they aren't pissing in my cereal.

So there is a social tide? Maybe we could fix that by drawing attention to it's effects.

Posted by: SlantedScience | August 7, 2010 6:47 PM

@Kieranfoy, #121:

@Slantedscine: Are you capable of determining the difference between an anotomical difference and a mental one?

Yes.

Yes, I am.

In the terms you are talking about, an anatomical difference is one which describes the presence/absence/positional change between males and females of the same species. A mental difference describes the preponderance of one of the sexes towards exhibiting the behavior/tendency/aptitude described.

Anything else I can help you with?

Posted by: Fred The Hun | August 7, 2010 6:49 PM

doctoratlantis @36,

If we get all feminist and make the dots into 'decifemals'? We don't want to call the dots periods - gross.

I'm thinking without a box.

Yes, but wouldn't it be better to just convert hexafeminal to bimary...

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 7, 2010 6:55 PM

It's like none of these guys have ever heard of Ben Barres.

"As a young woman—Barbara—he said he was discouraged from setting his sights on MIT, where he ended up receiving his bachelor’s degree. Once there, he was told that a boyfriend must have solved a hard math problem that he had answered and that had stumped most men in the class. After he began living as a man in 1997, Barres overheard another scientist say, “Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but his work is much better than his sister’s work.”"

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 7, 2010 7:00 PM

Carlie @134

Still happens today. My work is less impressive because I'm now a female researcher who has completed the same work than it was when I was seen as male.

Posted by: David Marjanović | August 7, 2010 7:04 PM

Here's a couple of possible reasons:

Hang on a second. If there's nothing to explain, you don't need to look for reasons. Apparently there is nothing to explain – the difference among schoolchildren keeps shrinking even in the USA.

(I've lost the references. Jadehawk has them, or at least linked to them a few months ago. I'm way too tired to google for them; maybe you should try doing that.)

If you prefer an anecdote, I grew up thinking girls are better at math, because for a long time that was the case in my class. Only in the last few years did a few guys catch up and become math nerds (as opposed to straight-A kids).

2) Female brains are better-equipped for, eg, learning languages, than are male.

Ever since Cleopatra, all the people I can think of that were said to have spoken 10 or 20 languages are male. Here are two such living individuals.

Males represent 75% of ASD diagnosis, is this due to cultural conditioning?

To some extent, yes – girls are simply expected to hide any such symptoms, because the stereotypical nerd is male.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 7:10 PM

Males represent 75% of ASD diagnosis, is this due to cultural conditioning?

To some extent, yes – girls are simply expected to hide any such symptoms, because the stereotypical nerd is male.

And because people are more likely to notice such behavior among boys, either because they've been told that ASD is more common in boys or because it presents in a more behaviorally disruptive way in boys. ADHD appears to be fairly evenly distributed between males and females, but females are wildly underdiagnosed because they are more likely to exhibit the inattentive rather than the hyperactive subtype, and it's easier to overlook the girl in the back of the classroom staring out the window than the boy who's falling out of his chair to make other kids laugh.

There are genetic and hormonal reasons why males may be more vulnerable to neurodevelopmental disorders, but we are a long way from being able to say that the disparity in diagnoses is due primarily to these biological factors.

Posted by: skeptifem | August 7, 2010 7:17 PM

What I thoroughly object to is being labeled a misogynist just because I believe that it is likely male and female brains are best-evolved to suit one or more of those four.

You don't have good evidence to believe what you do, and it currently, as in right now, oppresses women. You are helping by spreading around a bigoted and completely unproven idea about the supremacy of men. Tell me how insisting upon that isn't misogynist, exactly?

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 7, 2010 7:20 PM

Did we not ALL fall into the stereotype?

female versus male

male versus female

?

We are all guilty of presuppositions

Men are no better than girls except than potential ejaculation of live sperm; women are no better men who are no better than women who are no better than....

My penis is bigger than yours... my vagina is ...

Seriously, have we not moved beyond high school?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 7, 2010 7:29 PM

Isn't it funny how the ones arguing most vigorously for the status quo are those advantaged by it.

No kidding. All of these arguments could be summed up by an exchange something like this:

A: You're standing on my neck. Could you get off?
B: No I'm not. I don't feel anything.
A: Um, yes, you are. See me down here? See where you're standing? That's my neck. It hurts. Please move a little.
B: No, I'm not. If I were standing on your neck, I'm sure I'd notice. Besides, you're just claiming I am based on your own personal experience. Do you have any peer-reviewed studies showing that your neck is being stood on?
A: Actually, I do. Right here. But I am also right here, and you can just look.
B: Nope. And even given those studies, I'm not the one doing the standing on it. It's not my fault.
A: I'm sure it isn't. I understand that you didn't notice. But it is your shoe, right there, connected to your leg, and since I've pointed it out, would you mind moving it now?
B: That would inconvenience me, and you still haven't convinced me, so no.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 7, 2010 7:36 PM

@120

OK; study read. Thanks for the link. They'd do well to present their correlations in a table - the way they just state them is a damn mess.

Persistence in engineering for men and women depends on grades for women

Seemed to be the case in the research they referenced. I didn't actually check out that source paper, so I couldn't comment.

There's another one I think that does the follow up and found the reasons given for dropping were basically beliefs that they must be "stupid in math" if they got a C or a B, whereas men didn't at all feel they must be "stupid in math" even if they got an F.

If there is one, it's not mentioned in that paper, unless I missed it. That paper you linked seemed to have nothing to say about the views these women held of their math ability.

A further question is whether such an effect holds for other contexts: Is that same effect of grades true for all subjects or just some? If it's true for just some, why them and not others? The present study has nothing to say of the matter.
For example: Are women who get comparable grades in other subjects just as likely to drop out, or is this effect specific to male-dominated fields?

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 7, 2010 7:40 PM

@149

Source?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 7, 2010 7:42 PM

Hey MrN - there's this thing called "Google Scholar", which you can use to keep from trying to force other people do all your work for you. If you're really interested in what the literature has to say about it, then go spend an hour or so looking things up. If you're not, then admit that you are standing on ideas that have no support and STFU.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 7, 2010 7:53 PM

@150

I'm not actually in college anymore so I don't have access to all the journals like I used to.

But the fact that there isn't gender differentiation in said non-male-dominated field despite a broad spectrum of grades in men and women would be your first clue.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 7, 2010 7:55 PM

Fuckwit N, in science you have to prove yourself right with solid evidence. Something you appear to be totally unfamiliar with. Maybe if you were really intelligent, you would understand where the burden of proof lies, and fulfill the requirement. And it is upon you. Citations to the peer reviewed literature are your best evidence. After all, we know your word is worthless based upon your previous bullshit...

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 8:01 PM

@ skeptifem - many neurodevelopmental problems are probably X-linked, which is why females have lower rates and/or less severe presentations of such disorders. The problem is that we don't yet know whether the diagnosis rates reflect something biological or a bias in the diagnostic criteria.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 7, 2010 8:09 PM

Also this.

Probably this as well. Feeling stupid is a component of many academic disciplines especially at the upper levels. If you feel stupid in a culture where women are assumed to be dumber than men on a subject, than as a woman you are more likely to assume it's something wrong with you personally rather than a component of learning more and more.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 7, 2010 8:15 PM

@156

Burden of proof for a claim lies on those making it. When I ask a question about whether an effect is specific to certain fields and I get the answer:

It's specific to male-dominated fields.

Then evidence needs to be presented for said claim to be taken seriously. Citations to peer-reviewed evidence would be nice, which is why I asked for them.

You're not a very stable individual, are you?

Posted by: SC OM | August 7, 2010 8:24 PM

1.

As I said, I don't quite care how you present yourselves, but in case you care, maybe you should pay attention to it.

Kate, I'm concerned about the way in which you express your concern. You're just going to put people off with your (admittedly) ignorant, arrogant interventions. And revealing so soon that you really don't care about fighting sexism and inequality is bound to work against you with, y'know, feminists. Maybe you should pay attention to your writing, dear - you come across as somewhat less than sincere. Just some friendly advice. No need to thank me.

2. Leave LeeLeeOne alone! She bartered her way through the Potato Famine!

3. I just came across this while looking for something else:

http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/whysofew.cfm

Haven't read it yet.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 7, 2010 8:32 PM

SC:

2. Leave LeeLeeOne alone! She bartered her way through the Potato Famine!

Ha! Love that.

LeeLee still isn't getting that this isn't an us v. them argument.

Since we're all educators I feel like I can say that you sure as hell make for a shitty student, Lee. I've made the us v. them point at least twice now, but you continue to babble on.

I give you a D-.

Posted by: Noddin | August 7, 2010 8:33 PM

Hello. I think Carlie makes a very clever posting at #146! I will ask P.Z. Myers to repeat it tomorrow.

I will say this. I am not convinced, that the men are better at the things we say here. It is obvious, in my experiences. Men get some advantage because of the way people are viewing them. That is it. So, the advantage helps them get even more advantages. It is clear where that will lead, over a long time.

OK. I am not a woman. However, I am not from the United States, at the same time. When I moved here at first, people treat me like I am not as smart. Well? They think that because my voice is not the same. And, when I show that I am, they think I am "cheating" or receiving help. No. You are vile.

What is it now that you need to learn. It is simple. Even with these studies, it is clear that the minds can be changed with social behaviors. And expectation. Even in the PET scanning. Etc, because we are really thinking differently, when we are told to. Or learned. Of course. So you will see what you want to see. "Confirmation." This is not science. The best science, looks past the problems, finding the answers deeper.

I will make this tied to Science Blogs. When P.Z. Myers almost left the blog over Pepsi, he was seeing past it. He was crying, and then he realized he was an idiot from it. So, he changed it, and now it is OK.

It is true. We like what we already know. So, when you see men saying things like here, they are just comfortable. That is OK. But, when they do it, to keep themselves high up. It is a problem. Am I doing that? Let me know.

Did you find me? If not, I will come back with some more. Thank you.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 7, 2010 8:35 PM

LeeLeeOne (#165)

I am a human who is trying to promulgate that humans are humans.

You're an idiot who confuses discussion of ideas with promulgation of those ideas. You seem to think that to condemn something aloud is also to promote it. And you don't understand the difference between "is" and "ought."

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 7, 2010 8:41 PM

SC @164

Interesting reading.

"As noted earlier, a difference in average math perfor- mance between girls and boys no longer exists in the general school population (Hyde et al., 2008)."

"Chapter 3 examines research showing that negative stereotypes about girls’ abilities in math are still relevant today and can lower girls’ test performance and aspirations for science and engineering careers. When test administrators tell students that girls and boys are equally capable in math, the difference in performance disappears, illustrating the importance of the learning environment for encouraging girls’ achievement and interest in math."

"Chapter 4 profiles research on self-assessment, or how we view our own abilities. This research finds that girls assess their mathematical abilities lower than do boys with similar past math- ematical achievements. At the same time, girls hold themselves to a higher standard than boys do in subjects like math, believing that they have to be exceptional to succeed in “male” fields. One result of girls’ lower self-assessment of their math ability—even in the face of good grades and test scores—and their higher standard for performance is that fewer girls than boys aspire to STEM careers."

"In a follow-up study Correll (2004) verified in a laboratory exper- iment that when cultural beliefs about male superiority exist in any area, even a fictitious one, girls assess their abilities in that area lower, judge themselves by a higher standard, and express less of a desire to pursue a career in that area than boys do."

"Correll first became interested in the differences between boys’ and girls’ assessments of their science and math abilities when she taught high school chemistry for a few years before attending graduate school. She noticed that no matter how poorly the boys in her chemistry classes did, they continued to think that they were very good at chemistry; however, no matter how well the girls performed, it was difficult for Correll to convince them that they actually had some scientific ability. Once in graduate school Correll focused on how gender stereotypes attached to different skills or tasks influence how girls and boys understand their abilities independent of test scores or grades and how these gender differences in self-assessments contribute to gender differences in career choice."

"How do stereotypes affect self-assessments? Correll explains that we use stereotypes as “cogni- tive crutches” in situations in which we do not know how to judge our performance. Research shows that even individuals who do not personally endorse beliefs that men are better than women at math are likely to be aware that these beliefs exist in the culture and expect that others will treat them according to these beliefs. This expectation, or what we think “most people” believe, has been shown to influence judgments (Foschi, 1996; Steele, 1997; Lovaglia et al., 1998). If a girl believes that most people, especially those in her immediate environment, think boys are better than girls at math, that thought is going to affect her, even if she doesn’t believe it herself. Even if no one really believes that boys are better at math, the fact that a
girl thinks they believe it is what matters. This is the reason that the 2005 comments of Larry Summers—the former Harvard president who famously doubted that women are capable of succeeding at the highest levels of science and engineering—were so damaging. Because he spoke from such a powerful position, his remarks gave credibility to the stereotype that women may lack the aptitude to succeed in STEM fields."

"Perhaps the most interesting finding from this study is that women and men held different standards for what constituted high ability in the MA con- dition. In the MA condition, women believed they had to earn a score of at least 89 percent to be successful, but men felt that a minimum score of 79 percent was sufficient to be successful— a difference of 10 percentage points.
In the GD condition, women and men had much more similar ideas about how high their scores would have to be to assess themselves as having high task ability: women said they would need to score 82 percent, while men said they would need to score 83 percent (see figure 17). This finding suggests that women hold themselves to a higher standard than their male peers do in “masculine” fields."

"Correll’s findings suggest that the mere fact that science, technology, engineering, and math- ematics are commonly considered to be masculine domains may increase men’s self-assessment of their abilities and interest and lower women’s self-assessment and interest in pursuing careers in these areas. Additionally, the research indicates that women believe that they must achieve at exceptionally high levels in math and science to be successful STEM professionals. If women hold themselves to a higher standard than men do, fewer women than men of equal ability will assess themselves as being good at math and science and aspire to science and engineering careers."

Fuck, everyone should read the whole thing, especially Chapters 3 and 4.

The Figures in Chapter 4 are my answer to Mr. N.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | August 7, 2010 8:43 PM

The story so far:
Women are intellectually inferior to men in all ways. No wait, they are good at teaching, but nothing else. Oh, sorry, they seem to be pretty good with languages and the arts as well, but still not worthy of science. Damn, our mistake, they are good with biology, but they won't make it in the hard sciences like chemistry and physics. Umm, so maybe we were hasty with chemistry and physics, but men are still better at mathematics.
Gimme a break. How can this not constitute evidence that men and women are equally intellectually capable? We have a clear progression of equalization in every other field, why would we not expect a similar change to happen now or in the near future in the last bastions of male dominated academia?
Where is the evidence that this is not the case?

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 7, 2010 8:54 PM

If you wish to discuss this, female versus male versus female versus male versus ....
Is that not our original topic of discussion?

There are a few who jump on the bandwagon of accusation... It's formulation really.... omg... oh my god... this person MUST be on drugs or something... then... You are not normal... then... You must live or have lived where the population does not live. Your upbringing is not normal, and then I am insinuated to be a part of a Utopian society that does not exist.

You know what?

You believe in humanity. Period.

I could care less about gender, or race, or creed, or color, or ... WTF!, today is august 7th, of 2010... not 1710, or 1810, or 1910, or what that fuck ever!''

We are still having this discussion, about girls versus boys, men versus women, male versus female?

Seriously?!

It's 2010! people! men versus women, women versus men?! WTF!

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | August 7, 2010 8:57 PM

Yet confront these same rabid posters with the idea that genes on the sex chromosomes might have developed at the same time - leading to intraspecies/intersex differences in anatomy, physiology and behavior - and one is shouted down by a shrieking flock of faithful crows.

So, it's an idea that there might be a difference in cognitive abilities based on different development in the sexes?

Okay. It's a possibility. You have an hypothesis, though admittedly one without any empirical support. Run with it. How do you go about proving these hypothetical genetic differences exist? How do you distinguish your proposed genetic variance from social variance, which has been thoroughly demonstrated to exist?

Get over it, people: the tiny genomic differences between men and women can, while making the men grow cocks and the women grow tits, also influence their respective CNS development. These intersex dissimilarities must have evolutionary roots, and it is not too difficult to theorize as to what they may be.

Ah. I see. You don't prove it. You just move from the proposition to the assertion, which you do in the last sentence.

Are you sure you really know what it is that's getting everyone's knickers in knots?

Posted by: Azkyroth | August 7, 2010 8:59 PM

Men are more capable than women at developing prostate cancer. Men are more capable than women at producing sperm. Men are stronger than women. Men are faster than women. [Men are better at math than women???] [Men are worse at learning languages than women???]

Women don't have prostates and testicles and the difference between male and female musculature is dramatic and easily quantifiable. There are no differences of anything even remotely approaching comparable magnitude between male and female brains. If anything, this actually argues AGAINST your position, and you'd realize this if you weren't so emotionally invested in the idea that women are inferior (oh, but they're good at language, we'll give the poor little dears that).

Medicine, law, social science,.... all formerly mens fields, now equally persued by women. Math, engineering, still dominated by men why?

Because the process of correcting societal attitudes and historical injustice is still ongoing? Because girls have this shit droned in their ears all day long growing up?

Nope, after about two generations of it being even remotely acceptable for women to pursue these sorts of college subjects and it not being a constant uphill, we can safely conclude that the process of undoing societal sexism is OVER and only natural brain differences could possibly be left (and we can ignore the reports of lingering biases even in the fields where women have gained somewhat more equal representation by, um, fighting the way they are now on the "math and engineering" front).

Posted by: glowball | August 7, 2010 8:59 PM

Arrrgh! This subject infuriates me - especially when some well-meaning slob insists that "Oh well, they USED to discriminate, but that's all over now."
Fer instance, and yes ANECDOTE ALERT, and not strictly math, but...
Late 80's and the glowball was in college, majoring in physics. Got stuck in general physics lab with two boys who Would Not Let The Stupid Girl Touch Anything. Infuriating, and they basically shut me out of that little bit of education. Since I wasn't going to put up with that for the electronics lab, I asked the e-lab teacher if he would please allow me to work all the labs by myself instead of teams and told him why (and yes I was the only girl in the lab). Stars bless the man, he sympathized and set me up by myself. And I had a really good time with all the logic gates, etc.
Later on in college, when I had some trouble with some of the later calculus (the proofs, not the 'real math' bits) I went to my physics advisor, whose advice - instead of being about how to find a tutor, was a polite but pointed version about how I had tits and didn't belong in Physics, and how many female physics teachers did I see in this department, anyway? (a hint - none) THIS in the 1980's - not the the bloody 1950's. If I'd been more aware of my options, the jerkwad would have been up in front of his supervisors. Then again, maybe they wouldn't have seen a problem... A few more things like this and I transferred my intentions to the computer field where at that place and time, it was a lot more welcoming. There are times that I regret not being an "aggressive bitch" when I remember that I had aced (and enjoyed)both Special Rel and Intro to Quantum Mech. Then again its a bit much to expect from an eighteen year old who'd been raised to be "nice" at all times.

Yeah, I'm a bit bitter. Before college, I had asked for and gotten a recommendation into the Air Force Academy. Stupid me thought I could fly jets, and from there into the Space Shuttle (hey, my grades were good enough). At least I was disabused of the notion *before* I went. Another childhood dream bit the dirt. Realistically, the military probably wasn't the place for me - not because I'm a woman, but because I saw it as a means to an end. Feels a bit more ironic now that the shuttle program has been cancelled. Still, it hurt, and hurt bad - that as a girl I wasn't "good enough" to be allowed to even try.

Point is, I bet I'm not the only person whose dreams have been blocked time and again by asinine obstacles being placed in their way based on nothing more than their gender. Not just the girls either. My nephew is a very talented artist, and may make that his vocation. In some families even today, that wouldn't be acceptable either.

It all sucks very hard, and is at least in part the reason why some of us react so very strongly to stupid-ass gender-based messages. These horrible stereotypes get applied to real individuals and they do real damage.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 9:02 PM

Slanted Science, I have repeatedly stated that I suspect that there are subtle differences ON AVERAGE between male and female populations in various cognitive abilities. No one is arguing that prenatal hormones can affect behavior, cognition, etc. We are not discussing neurobiology here.

We are discussing whether individual females, including those who have mathematical abilities that exceed the male average, are systematically discouraged from entering careers involving mathematics.

Unless mathematicians use a penis to do math, then I see no obvious reason why the possession of a penis should be a criterion for participation in mathematical careers. Your argument would be akin to announcing that because prenatal estrogens increase verbal fluency in female children, it would be reasonable if way more than half of all books published were written by women and if boys were systematically discouraged from creative writing and AP English literature classes.

In other words, your arguments are both imprecise and stupid.

Posted by: cactuar.tamer | August 7, 2010 9:03 PM

Get over it, people: the tiny genomic differences between men and women can, while making the men grow cocks and the women grow tits, also influence their respective CNS development. These intersex dissimilarities must have evolutionary roots, and it is not too difficult to theorize as to what they may be.

The thing is, SlantedScience, that you don't just get to declare a priori what those 'intersex dissimilarities' are, and then theorize yourself up some nice post-hoc evo-psych explanation for them.

The fact is, as we have been trying to tell you, we don't actually yet know what, if any 'intersex dissimilarities' actually exist, because we have been unable thus far to eliminate cultural variables. In fact, most evidence suggests that innate differences are likely insignificant, given how culturally malleable these things are.

In fact, how DO you account for such a wide range of variability in these innate 'interesex dissimilarities' across time and culture, if, in fact they are so innate/significant as all that?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 7, 2010 9:04 PM

Fuckwit N, still no evidence, but the is expected from losers like you. Anything but reality. You live in an alternate universe from reality. Your only hope to appear even semirational is to shut the fuck up. Losers don't. Are you a loser or not?

Posted by: Azkyroth | August 7, 2010 9:11 PM

Caine, show me where the hypothesis that the gender difference in math skill has been conclusively shown to be nurture based and I will gladly change my tune.

"It's all biological" is not the null hypothesis ("default"), dumbass.

Scientific method FAIL.

Also, anyone, explain to me why women have met or exceeded enrollment levels in all other acedemic fields which they were once shunned except the ones under discussion. The law, medicine and psychology girls got through, why did the math girls fail to break through?

Because they had to start somewhere?

What I thoroughly object to is being labeled a misogynist just because I believe that it is likely male and female brains are best-evolved to suit one or more of those four.

Given the historical association between those sorts of claims and misogyny, and the lack of comprehensible alternatives to "misogyny" or "resistance to change in the currently misogynistic system" (which is kinda the same thing at the tailpipe, so to speak) as an explanation for why you want to declare the matter settled in this way, here and now, with massive and very real "nurture" inequalities staring us in the face and the evidential support for your favored model being lackluster on its face and plagued by nurture-related confounding factors, I don't see why you're fucking surprised.

Posted by: glowball | August 7, 2010 9:12 PM

LeeLeeOne
Apparently, its a MadLib? And its smoking something?

Posted by: NitricAcid | August 7, 2010 9:16 PM

This guy (Freeman) used to teach at my Alma Mater, until the mid-90s.

http://www.grubstreetbooks.ca/essays/sexistscience.html

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | August 7, 2010 9:18 PM

Yeah, Caine, but that requires brains to install, and firefox, and I'm happy with Explored. (and too tech-imcompetant to easily move my faves)

Besides, Leelee would STILL be disrupting other people's conversation with nonsense.

Posted by: skeptifem | August 7, 2010 9:25 PM

Get over it, people: the tiny genomic differences between men and women can, while making the men grow cocks and the women grow tits, also influence their respective CNS development. These intersex dissimilarities must have evolutionary roots, and it is not too difficult to theorize as to what they may be.

I would "get over" it if you could prove it, but you can't. We don't know enough about how math ability works in the brain to say how it evolved or how/if it differs between genders. Even if we did have concrete proof of a difference it would be impossible to know why the difference exists without information about the development of the trait. It is a hugely complex question, one I am not comfortable pretending to have an answer to. If it was some kind of overwhelmingly biologically determined gendered thing it would present cross culturally, and it doesn't. If there is a difference it isn't important enough to override the cultural influence.

I would have an easier time "getting over it" if I didn't feel the constant pang of stereotype threat (look it up) when I decided to learn math on my own. Attitudes like yours made it harder for me personally to learn math. You need a good reason to hold that beleif, and you don't have one.

Biological inferiority is the most dangerous idea in the world. It is the needed foundation for every ism in existance. Feeling superior must be nice for ya, slantedscience, but it hardly something that indicates the truth about me.

Posted by: skeptifem | August 7, 2010 9:28 PM

I kinda like leelee. I have a fondness for hippies, the really incoherant ones are harmless anyway.

Posted by: eMel | August 7, 2010 9:34 PM

Duh, the variable names need permanent changes.

Instead of X or Y, a problem should read:

Pony + sticker = bubblegum, solve for Pony.

I'm sure someone can come up with other substitutions.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 7, 2010 9:36 PM

LeeLeeOne - Seriously, is English not your first language?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 7, 2010 9:41 PM

LeeLee:

I could care less about gender, or race, or creed, or color, or ... WTF!, today is august 7th, of 2010... not 1710, or 1810, or 1910, or what that fuck ever!

Thank you for being the only enlightened soul on this thread. *eyeroll*

Here's the point one more time: Your argument does nothing to address the inherent sexism in academia and in the "field" (as it were). Yes, we get it, people are people, but your amazement that there is actually sexism out there in the world just makes you look ignorant and uneducated.

Repeating over and over again about humans and man v. woman is not a coherent argument. Learn to string words together to form one complete thought and maybe I'll take you seriously. But until then, I will continue to point out that you make no sense and you've got the maturity of an idealistic 15 year old.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 7, 2010 9:44 PM

SS - data. You don't have it. Put up or shut up.

Unless mathematicians use a penis to do math, then I see no obvious reason why the possession of a penis should be a criterion for participation in mathematical careers.

It might get a bit uncomfortable when they try to fit it into the compass to draw angles.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 7, 2010 9:45 PM

Huh, I wonder why all the "SCIENCE!" believers who really truly don't want to be sexist, it's just what "SCIENCE!" believes aren't actually looking at that nice long report and literature review we found on the reasons for low female participation in the remaining male-dominated fields.

Seeing how it was only their love of "SCIENCE!" that prompted them to have those views, you would assume they would relieved and delighted to have learned the reality of the situation instead of continuing their unsupported claptrap...

I'm almost beginning to believe they don't love "SCIENCE!" at all and the "SCIENCE!" thing was all a front to hide the pants-wetting terror they feel about the end of the patriarchal dominance and the idea that they might have to compete with women on an even level and can't just claim they are "better" than women at "the only things that matter".

But that couldn't be right, could it?

Ugh, if only it mattered when you proved bad faith argumentation on the side of the dominant group.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 7, 2010 9:47 PM

SS, where is your primary scientific peer reviewed literature citations? Either put up or shut the fuck up. Welcome to real science. Only unethical fools and/or idjits without integrity can't do one or the others. I suspect we have your number...

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | August 7, 2010 9:49 PM

@LeeLeeOne

This is not Bring Your Own Bong Night at the poetry club. We're saying that you sound like you're high because everything you say is horrifically incoherent. I'm fairly certain you haven't posted an actual sentence in this entire thread. Learn how words work, please.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 7, 2010 9:53 PM

However, I don't feel that the problem is large enough to warrant any kind of nationwide program of rescue, as other, similar discriminations are of more importance.

Well, then, since YOU don't feel it's a problem, it must not be. Can you see my eyeroll from there?

Posted by: Thadd | August 7, 2010 9:55 PM

The artist of this comic must have listened to Science Friday this week. The Wonder Years girl was on pimping her engendered math books.

Posted by: cactuar.tamer | August 7, 2010 10:08 PM

And actually, because it is bothering me... A word on biological differences and how they are effected by culture:

It is true that men are stronger than women, and men develop muscle faster and better in general. Yes, that is true. But the innate difference is not as large as our culture would have you think. The cultural narrative has taken it and expanded it far out of proportion to it's reality.

Consider elementary school health standards which are set much lower for girls than boys, even at an age where the differentiation caused by puberty has not kicked in yet.

I do powerlifting. Now, I've been with my group for over a year. Sometimes we get new guys joining up, taking up lifting for the first time. I'm always stronger than these dudes when they start out. Sure, if they keep with it, they surpass me, but in general, it took just a little effort, and I've gotten to the point where I'm stronger than a lot of guys out there.

But I'm surrounded by women who swear they can't do a single pushup. It's really sad to me. That's what we call learned helplessness. There's no reason any healthy adult shouldn't be able to do several pushups, but because women grow up surrounded by blatantly lower expectation, and being offered the easy way out ('girl push ups'), they often give up or mentally shut themselves out of even trying. The same principles are at work when it comes to any number of other things. Society works really hard to enforce its assumptions.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 7, 2010 10:14 PM

LeeLee:
lolwut?

I'm gonna echo some others here: Is English not your first language? Do you speak English at all or are you running your posts through Google translate?

I don't have the time, patience, or willpower to tutor you in sentence structure or paragraph composition. (Pro tip: Lose the ellipses. They only add to the confusion.) Needless to say, you'd make a hell of a lot better argument if you could attempt to have some coherency. We're not mind readers, you know.

Bonus track: I'm spit balling here, but I don't think we're in total disagreement. This is a problem that affects society on the whole and people should be treated as humans, nothing less. However, you have offered up no solutions and no understandable arguments.

Why are women forced out of math? Why are girls convinced that they can't do math? What solutions are there to draw women into the field? Can you actually address those questions?

Posted by: esnyder2 | August 7, 2010 10:25 PM

200 posts, and not a single person has mentioned Danica McKellar yet? For shame.

http://www.mathdoesntsuck.com/

She's taking kind of a middle lane here.

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 7, 2010 10:26 PM

Men are not women, and women are not men... we are equal, we are human. Why are we having this discussion?

Women are not less than men nor are they better than men, and men are not better than women nor are they less than women.

We are all human.

This was the original discussion... men being better than women or women being better than men...

Seriously, why is this discussion even necessary?!

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 7, 2010 10:28 PM

LeeLee - why do you never answer questions about whether English is a second language for you?

Posted by: glowball | August 7, 2010 10:32 PM

LeeLeeOne @226
You've been told why we are having this discussion. The title of the post can tell you why we are having this discussion. I am glad for you that you are one with all humanity, or whatever you are positing. That does not negate that this discussion is of importance to some of us who want to change the fact that women are being shunted away from studies and careers that they could make a valuable contribution in.

Posted by: Tor Bertin | August 7, 2010 10:38 PM

Very much reminds me of the horrible "Paleo Barbie."

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 7, 2010 10:46 PM

Hey, what was wrong with Paleontologist Barbie?

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 7, 2010 10:58 PM

We all just need to realize that LeeLee is having a completely different discussion from the rest of us.

Posted by: NitricAcid | August 7, 2010 11:06 PM

At the same institution as Gordon Freeman, I also had a history instructor, who raved that the reason women were not scientific was that Science (with a capital S) was a masculine construct, which was deliberately created to reject feminine ways of "knowing". Only feminist I'd ever met who agreed with Freeman on any point.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | August 7, 2010 11:10 PM

#236

From reading their (Her? The name sounds feminine but I don't really know) posts, I have deduced that they believe this thread is about creating a man vs woman fighting ring. I think they might have suggested adding children into combat, then later infants. That, or it is angry with the concept and is using the idea that children and infants may later be included in the combat as a sort of "slippery slope" argument. It then goes on to either ask why we are discussing such a horrible proposition, or to show its impatience by asking why we are continuing to discuss instead of enacting the plan.

That's about as much sense as I can make out of it, anyways.

Posted by: redrabbitslife | August 7, 2010 11:29 PM

Another anecdote of a girl pushed away from engineering. It wasn't on purpose, it was the fact that my local university's engineering programme was very heavily male-dominated, to the point where female students were raped at class parties. And it wasn't just one episode! It was the mid-1990's and still, nothing ever came of it. Nobody was thrown out of the programme.

I decided I really did not need to deal with that. It didn't cost me, really, as I enjoy medicine.

I wasn't discouraged from maths; as a matter of fact, I was offered a fast-track to a master's in pure maths. But you'd have to be a real masochist to do *that*.

Oh, and Mattir #140, I think you're mixing up ASD (autism spectrum disorders) and ADD (attention deficit disorder). ADD has inattentive and hyperactive subtypes; and you're precisely right, a lot of the girls get missed because they're staring off into space rather than zooming around the room. Again, in general.

ASD is a little different, and I think this is where the X-linked theory comes in.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 7, 2010 11:36 PM

@ #242 -

No, I know that ADD and ASD are different. It is, however, possible that autistic spectrum conditions in females may be underdiagnosed, just like ADD was 20 years ago. I have heard this discussed at autism research conferences in the last few years (and not Jenny McCarthy type conferences, btw).

Horrifying story of the engineering program you had to deal with. Not surprising, but horrifying.

Posted by: DLC | August 7, 2010 11:47 PM

SC OM @237 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ88oTITMoM
perhaps a walk on the wild side, where sometimes he is a she.

Posted by: theonides | August 8, 2010 12:11 AM

we could start by hiring math teachers for their compentence rather than their "personality".

Posted by: Spike | August 8, 2010 2:01 AM

There are probably several factors at play here and one I can't speak to is the experience of growing up female and how that would influence my career choice. I've no doubt that gender bias is one of many factors in the lack of females in engineering and math.

I remember reading a study, I will try to locate a link but want to throw this out there, a study that followed math test scores through high school (in the US). The results showed that the average scores were equal for male and female students, at least up until about high school when scores for females started to fall behind their male counterparts. I'm guessing the latter is when the cultural influence mentioned in other posts starts to kick in. One thing that was noted, at least before high school, was that even though the average was pretty much the same there was a statistically significant difference in the standard deviation, i.e. both curves were normal bell curves but the male curve was flatter. This means that there were more males at the extreme ends of the spectrum, those that performed extremely well and those that performed extremely poor. I don't remember the reasons that may have been put forth for this difference but the question in regard to this discussion is does this factor into the reason for some of the difference regarding the disparity in male vs females in math careers?

Another factor that I have heard discussed and ties in with some of the above discussion is that the choice of careers has increased for women and some of the difference is just explained by personal preference (and this certainly can be influenced by cultural bias). For example, I have heard that women prefer fields that have (or are perceived to have) more human interaction to them such as medicine, psychology, law and many of the so called soft sciences. Another factor in the differences is that given so many career choices that math for whatever reason is not high on the list of possible careers for a woman. The number of available jobs in these fields would certainly be an influence regardless of gender.

I agree that there is still a cultural bias directing women away from a math career but I don't think it is the only explanation.

Posted by: Noddin | August 8, 2010 3:05 AM

Hi. Well. I don't know why it is, nobody has come to me with questions? OK. If you need to talk to me, I will come back.

Well, I will say it to "Kieranfoy". I am not any other person. I don't know how to prove it, to you. But, at the same time. Maybe it does not mean anything? If P.Z. Myers can see my computer. He will see it. Do I say "stilted"? I was not born there, I live in Seattle, Washington now, but I was not born there.

So. I enjoy the posts from "Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification". Also the "skeptifem". These are people, they are not afraid to say it when others might be afraid. If you keep saying those things, something will happen. It won't be a drama. But. You might make something change. Thank you. I have seen your blog. I wrote my statement that week.

How do we change it to atheism? I will do it. Theist shit minds keep saying it, that God is making us. What? So. Some people here are saying it, "evolution", that is the excuse. We are modify to be separate? No. If God made us as BODIES, then maybe, women are not equal. Otherwise. Why do we look different. However. I am happy to say it, "God" is not doing this. We are doing it, to our species! We are making this to ourselves. There is no real science that will say, women are not as smart. OK.

I was recently walking along the bridge. I saw it in the corner. What was it? Well, I would not say that, I don't know, but it was a human. I could not see it.

I am meaning to stop this, to the blog. I am not getting one message to you. I know I have a new way of thought, do you? I hope to come back and talk.

Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas | August 8, 2010 3:13 AM

LeeLee, the only person who's interpreting the issue as "males vs females" is you.

I think SS and mr-shit-for-nails might be on the team too. LL1 is just a bit less lucid.

Is anyone stopping girls from being interested in science enough to pursue it in school?

You could do something like - you know - actually reading the comments above. It usually helps (you might want to skip LeeLeeOne though, and maybe slantedscience and nagelfar)

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/U7IeAfwuu4r_eiZ7WXqe4xcXSmXL#7e2fa | August 8, 2010 3:55 AM

HEY EVERYONE IT'S SCIENCE TIME!!!!!

What's this? Hey, it's "Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis" by Else-Quest, Hyde, and Linn, 2010, from Psychological Bulletin 136(1).

Let's check out the literature review:

Stereotypes about female inferiority in mathematics (Bhana,2005; Fennema, Peterson, Carpenter, & Lubinski, 1990; Fennema & Sherman, 1977; Hyde, Fennema, Ryan, Frost, & Hopp, 1990; Li, 1999) stand in distinct contrast to the actual scientific data reported in previous studies...

So what's the actual data?

Reviewing evidence from research with infants and preschoolers, Spelke (2005) concluded that gender similarities are the rule in the development of early number concepts. Girls earn better grades in mathematics courses through the end of high school (Dwyer & Johnson, 1997; Kenney-Benson, Pomerantz, Ryan, & Patrick, 2006; Kimball, 1989)...In the United States, gender differences in mathematics performance are declining. A meta-analysis in 1990 (Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon., 1990) found an effect size of d = -0.05 for the gender difference in math performance among the general population, indicating a negligible female advantage (note that positive values of d represent higher scores for males than females, whereas negative values represent higher scores for females)...More recent data indicate that the gender difference in math achievement has been eliminated. A study of statewide mathematics tests administered between 2005 and 2007 for Grades 2–11 found d = 0.0065, without the increased gender gap in adolescence found with earlier data (Hyde et al., 2008). These findings, for U.S. samples, are consistent with the gender similarities hypothesis, which maintains that males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables (Hyde, 2005).

But there's more variability in male scores, right? So there's more man genuises than woman geniuses, right? Everybody knows that!

One statistic used to test this hypothesis is the variance ratio, VR, or the male variance divided by the female variance. Analysis of variance ratios in cross-national data (using the 2003 cycle of the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA) indicates that males are sometimes more variable, although the variance ratios do not indicate widely divergent differences (Hyde & Mertz, 2009; Machin & Pekkarinen, 2008). For example, VR equals 1.19 for the United States and 1.06 for the United Kingdom. However, other countries display variance ratios that do not differ significantly from 1.0 or are even significantly less than 1.0. For example, VR equals 0.99 for Denmark and 0.95 for Indonesia. Thus, despite some claims (Machin & Pekkarinen, 2008), the phenomenon of greater male variance in mathematics performance is not universal (Penner, 2008). Another method of testing the greater male variability hypothesis is to examine mean gender differences in achievement on assessments of varying difficulty level. That is, if males are overrepresented in the upper tails of the distribution, gender differences in achievement should belarger on difficult or complex problems than on easy or moderate problems. Although Hyde, Fennema, and Lamon’s (1990) metaanalysis showed that males outperformed females in complex problem solving by d = 0.29 in high school, recent data suggest that this gap has closed.

Not going to do any more quoting. Basically the authors found that there is considerable variability in effect sizes between different countries (some countries are male-dominant in math, others are female-dominant) but overall, the mean effect sizes were negligible for all measures on two different tests of various math skills (all effect sizes were less than .15, most were in favor of males but some were in favor of females). They also measured confidence in math abilities, motivation to do math, math anxiety, etc. These turned out exactly how you would think they would and these effect sizes were larger (all above .20) than the actual math performance gender differences. Gender differences in math achievement were significantly correlated with these measures.

Oh, and it's been the case that they've continued to find only negligable differences between male & female math performance SINCE THE FUCKING 1980s, but for some reason this stereotype will. not. die.

They also found that gender ratios in school and gender equity in research jobs predict the gender gap in math achievement & attitudes towards math. Oddly enough there is an inverse relationship between amount of political representation shared by females (parliament seats) and how good they feel about math. This is a complicated relationship that the authors hypothesize is due to the fact that women/girls (and men/boys, for that matter)in countries with high gender inequity are likely to not feel any pressure to perform in math and thus will not be anxious about it.

Anyway this is REAL SCIENCE & not shitty pseudo-evo-psych speculation, and I'd invite anyone who is interested in this stuff to actually read the math cognition literature. One consistent finding that is replicated again and again and again is that gender differences in math are negligible if any, only appear under certain circumstances and after a certain age, and are limited to very small domains (mental rotation of objects, for example, which coincidentally the gender difference is also shrinking on).

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | August 8, 2010 4:13 AM

#256

Actual science instead of people screeching at each other like fucking monkeys? I think I like you, Yahoomess.

Posted by: Robin J | August 8, 2010 4:43 AM

Even better, can we remove the stigma of femaleness as unmathematical?

Posted by: Fred The Hun | August 8, 2010 5:52 AM

@256,

Thanks for the science! Can't argue with that...

LeeLee, thanks for the human perspective. Unfortunately being at the end of the first decade of the 21st century doesn't seem to have changed much all that much compared to the dark ages.

I still remember my 5 year old Aspie son calculating the hypotenuse of the kitchen tiles using a scientifically accurate replica of a tree frog as a unit of measure... he took advanced algebra last year as a freshman in high school. The teacher is female and the class was about about evenly split male female students and this is South Florida, go figure.

I think most of the people in this thread need to go do some serious drugs or some advanced calculus!

Give me a button of wild peyote
To munch in my den at night,
That I may set my id afloat
In the country of queer delight.

So ho! it's off to the land of dreams
With never a stop or stay,
Where psychiatrists meet with fairy queens
To sing a foundelay.

Give me a flagon of mescaline
To wash o'er my mundane mind,
That I may feel like a schizophrene
Of the catatonic kind.

So hey! let in the vision of light
To banish banality,
Then will I surely catch a sight
Of the Real Reality.

Give me a chalice of lysergic
To quaff when day is done,
That I may get a perceptual kick
From my diencephalon.

So ho! let all resistance down
For a transcendental glance,
Past the superego's frosty frown
At the cosmic underpants.

Give me a pinch of psilocybin
To sprinkle in my beer,
That my psychopathic next-of-kin
May not seem quite so queer.

So hey! it's off for the visions bizarre
Past the ego boundary,
For a snort at the psychedelic bar
Of the new psychiatry.

F. W. Hanley, M.D.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 8, 2010 7:02 AM

A purely personal anecdote on the subject: a friend of mine did her tech degree at the Helsinki Uni in late '90s.

Sometime in the second year, she received a stern talking-to from her professor, who stated that her grades were only slightly above average and thus, maybe 1) she should reconsider her discipline (if for no other reason than that her being "just" average was reflecting negatively on all the female students at the faculty) and 2) that maybe it would be better to free her seat for a new student, if "slightly above the average" was all they were going to get.

Which not only makes the professor sound like a complete moron, it's also kinda wonky from the statistical point of view. Luckily, she stuck to her guns and is now a happy little computer engineer (if there is such a thing).

We don't know if the professor had the same little talk also with those students who were doing worse than her. If that's the case, maybe there may have been some sort of warped logic behind his thinking. Maybe he thought that with a new, better batch of students they'd ALL BE ABOVE AVERAGE! o_O

But the slur about her making the other female students look bad was totally out of line in any case.

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 7:25 AM

Actual science instead of people screeching at each other like fucking monkeys?

Oh, bite me.

I linked to that article back in May in a similar discussion. You'll note that I also referred to an earlier thread - one of several -on which this had been discussed at length. People have been linking to and quoting SCIENCE! all along. Gas that stopped the sexist clowns? No. This is another thread that could have been about finding solutions but instead turned into another battle with antifeminist concern trolling and the unfounded innateness claims that will not die, and people are justifiably sick of it. From now on, I'm going to send the clowns to this thread and then ignore them.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | August 8, 2010 8:47 AM

#266

Yeah, sorry, saying "I linked to it months ago" doesn't mean a whole lot with this current thread. People are stupid. All of them. If you want them to understand something, you have to violently beat it into their heads. Linking something once and then refusing to ever mention it again is just going to get you blank stares and hostility later on.

The only other link I see to actual science is something you barely mentioned besides to say that you didn't read it (Unless XKCD is peer reviewed? I certainly saw a lot of links to that). Do you think that's going to interest the idiots? Again, people are stupid. If you basically admit that something isn't worth your time, then they're going to assume that it's not worth theirs.

I understand why you're frustrated. I live in Southern Got-Durn West Virginia. Do you know how fucking HARD it is to convince someone here that the Bible is bullshit, regardless of the amount of evidence involved? Here's a hint: There are more churches in my town than restaurants.

That doesn't make evidence meaningless. We have Honest to Spike Motherfucking Spiegel TRUTH on our side, and you're just going to not mention it because you already did MONTHS AGO? Maybe Slant didn't get it then. That fucker probably never will, assuming he actually believes anything he says and isn't just some troll masturbating at your impotent rage. These other people asking for evidence might get it. Any of the ridiculous number of lurkers who read PZ's blog might get it.

So even if you've already told The Truth before, it bears telling again. In big letters with flashing signs, maybe some quotes. Don't link to this thread. People will assume that you saying shit is just you saying shit, or they'll assume that if you can't be bothered to find the actual evidence, they shouldn't be bothered to read it.

I get that it's hard. I get that it's frustrating. Human stupidity is a heavy, heavy weight, and pushing against it wears a person down. But we have truth, and we have reason, and our side is the one that's ACTUALLY RIGHT. Our best tool is the ability to point that out. If we ignore that tool, or let it get buried under the screaming monkey shitflinging, we'll never get anywhere.

I admit that I do it too, at times. Because I'm human, and being human means that I'm an idiot. I don't always have the evidence, or really know how to find it. I let my emotions get the best of me and go on ranting tirades about stupid shit. But unlike some people in this thread, I don't go "Well I have evidence, but I'm not posting it because you're a big mean doodyhead and I've said this to someone in the past before and I don't want to anymore so nyeh *Sticks out tongue*".

Posted by: MosesZD | August 8, 2010 9:25 AM

I tried to socialize my daughters out of pink from birth. I failed. But the teenage years took care of it...

Now if I could get the youngest to admit there is more to life than black...

Posted by: Rorschach | August 8, 2010 10:00 AM

Hey Shplane,

stop flirting with my lady.Or whatever numbskull arguing goes for flirting in West Virginia.

Because I'm human, and being human means that I'm an idiot.

Now bend over and get ready to repent.

If you care about something other than insulting concern trolling, contribute some fucking links and arguments of your own.

*crickets*

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | August 8, 2010 10:16 AM

Now bend over and get ready to repent.

Now, now, Rorshach, save the porno movie quotes for the endless thread. Not all of us are laboring under a priest fetish. ;)

Posted by: Teshi | August 8, 2010 10:40 AM

and if he'd remember that, we'd go and put his toy together. He was so shocked, he just said ok, and off we went. He's in his 20's now; I wonder if he remembers.)

I have twice put Lego (which I believe is the answer to life, the universe and everything-- real lego that is not the crappy Star Wars stuff) in front of girls (and boys) and had a similar reaction:

"Lego is for boys."

For me, this is clear evidence that even in this day and age, where we emphasize and tell our girls they can do anything boys can do, that this reaction occurs? It must stem from an endemic social belief that there are some things that girls don't do and these things include engineering (and likely math).

Science-- certain sciences-- like marine biology and medical sciences (and veterinary sciences) seem to have come to more of the forefront. But a shocking number of women I've talked to or heard about did an undergrad degree in something like chemistry and then went on to become [i]naturopaths[/i] or [i]homeopaths[/i]. That's a major problem.

Coming back to the Lego: I, being a woman, cna easily prove this isn't the case by simply getting involved. Each time, the girls have quickly become involved (although they're often at a disadvantage because they don't get given these toys as much, or they don't play with them as much in the same way).

We need to get some little girls who are still in the (ugh, gah) princess stage age, to see themselves as engineers. Honestly, it might be necessary for us to hide the dolls once in a while the same way it might be good for us to hide the toy soldiers (apologies for stereotyping) from boys: perhaps they need less choice in order to become more rounded in their abilities? Imagine a group of girls in a pre-school classroom given the choice of the dollhouse and the Lego. I can guarantee you that a division would appear. Few girls would leave the companionship of their friends to play with the Lego. If we put the dolls away, everyone has to play with the Lego-- there's no stigma. The toy is versitile enough (provided you buy the good Lego) to allow everyone to interact with it in a different way learning some basic building skills.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 8, 2010 11:00 AM

I have no fucking clue how to navigate the 288k results for "Math and gender" on Google Scholar.

So add "gender discrimination" to the search terms. Googling isn't that hard.

For me, this is clear evidence that even in this day and age, where we emphasize and tell our girls they can do anything boys can do, that this reaction occurs?

I have two sons. You can bet your ass they've never heard "boys do this" or "girls do that" in my household. Yet they routinely come up with that - I think they absorb it from the air. I can't count the times we've been talking about/doing something mechanical or sciency or looking at such toys at the store and the "those are for boys" or "those are for girls" comments come up. I always respond with "But I'M a girl, and I do it/like it/am good at it. It's for girls too." I usually get a blank look in response, with a mumbled comment about how I don't count.

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 11:23 AM

But hey, here's one of those 288k from Google Scholar http://edr.sagepub.com/content/18/8/17.abstract. I have no idea if it's good.

Learn. (It's old, and they're two of the authors of the more comprehensive 2010 article linked to above and earlier.)

So that's it on the citations and arguments then? I'm shocked.

The fact that I don't often do much at Pharyngula doesn't mean that I don't argue about this and other shit FUCKING CONSTANTLY at other places.

Links, please. I'd like to critique your style of argumentation.

I have no fucking clue how to navigate the 288k results for "Math and gender" on Google Scholar.

So when you argue about this at those other places every post is not a citation, and therefore you're monkey-screeching? Or you're just so lazy that you want us to do all of the work for you? If you genuinely care, you'll learn how to do searches - asking might help. At the very least, you're capable of reading through previous threads here (one of which I've linked to above, specificially to a post which refers to another one - "Baby Bear's Lament"). Here's a little help for finding more: this discussion comes up on almost every thread about women. Look for those, and you'll find plenty of links and quotations and arguments, of varying quality. Can you do that? Get to it. It'll take a while. Once you do, that information is yours, too - your responsibility. You are now expected to be around and on-call with these prepared and ready to argue for hours with people like SlantedScience every time they raise their claims regardless of how tangential they are. For the next several months at a minimum. Enjoy.

(By the way, I'll note for the record that I had posted one source on this thread - an actual link - that was directly on point. This is exactly as many as Googlemess posted in replying to the side-argument, which for all we know Googlemess originally found through my link in May.)

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 11:41 AM

No one's going to get it if you only say something once, though.

Really? Tell that to Googlemess.

If I was going to [concern] troll, I'd be acting a lot more like Slant. Just sayin'.

No, you'd be acting just as you are, which is very similar to reystefn the other day.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 8, 2010 12:09 PM

Now if I could get the youngest to admit there is more to life than black...

there is?

I have no fucking clue how to navigate the 288k results for "Math and gender" on Google Scholar.

soo... because you're too lazy to learn one of the essential skills for skeptics/scientists on the internet, that's somehow a valid excuse for complaining that others don't do the work for you?

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 8, 2010 12:30 PM

For the rest: You generally can't have it both ways. You can't make claims, assert them as gospel truth, insist that everyone else spend lots of their limited time browsing through searches for articles (and reading them, if one is able to get actual copies of the papers themselves), insist that anyone who isn't interested in devoting days (sometimes weeks, depending on the field) to a proper search acquainting themselves with the literature in a field in a lazy asshole, while also bitching at them for not automatically supporting you even if what you're saying is perfectly true.

Actually, you could do all those things, but they don't make for good debate - just lots of yelling.

Which, of course, you will also bitch about, because that's concern trolling and good debate is all about who can yell the loudest; it's certainly not about being productive. Since volume doesn't work online, even with caps lock, it gets down to who just doesn't stop talking.

Professors generally don't show up for class, start telling their students shit, and then call their students lazy and stupid if they ask the professor for the source.

In academic debates, people generally don't insist that the other side of the debate needs to go do more research in order to find the sources for the information being offered. They bring their sources.

If you've personally linked to a relevant article before, it should take you roughly a minute or less to dig it up yourself. If you're unwilling to do that, you're either lazy, spiteful, or both.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 8, 2010 12:43 PM

Professors generally don't show up for class, start telling their students shit, and then call their students lazy and stupid if they ask the professor for the source.

professors get paid for arguing with assholes like you; i do not. professors also only have to repeat themselves once every semester; we have to do this on an almost daily basis.

seriously, fuck off. it is in fact not the job of the underprivileged to teach you about your privilege; it's your job to learn about it.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | August 8, 2010 1:02 PM

#289

Well I asked for advice. And again, it's not so much that I don't know how to "Use google scholar" (Type in words, type in more words until you have fewer results. Same as google-anything-else) it's that I don't know how to differentiate between a good article and a bad one, and that the vast majority of results come up as "Give us money". I asked for advice on that. Any tips?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2010 1:09 PM

Actually, you could do all those things, but they don't make for good debate - just lots of yelling.

Yes old Yeller? Sounds like your method of debate. The loudest and most persistent wins in your deluded mind, as you aim to do that. Nevermind real evidence.

Professors generally don't show up for class, start telling their students shit, and then call their students lazy and stupid if they ask the professor for the source.

Why are you using this inane analogy. Yes, when I taught I had that information. But then, this isn't a classroom, and won't be. The only way you can learn here is by shutting your yap and actually listening. But then, you appear to think you can learn by lecturing to us.

In academic debates, people generally don't insist that the other side of the debate needs to go do more research in order to find the sources for the information being offered. They bring their sources.

I don't know where you get that idea. You obviously aren't an academic, as I have been. Not all the information is at ones fingertips, so sometimes everyone needs to check their references. And it is better for college students to research things on their own, rather than having it constantly spoon fed to them. After all, it isn't in real life. Why are you afraid to do so? Maybe you know you are full of shit?

If you're unwilling to do that, you're either lazy, spiteful, or both.

Still talking about yourself fuckwit. Either back your assertions with evidence, meaning citations to the peer reviewed literature, or shut the fuck up. Only folks without integrity like yourself can't do either. We scientists call those folks liars and bullshitters. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 8, 2010 1:15 PM

why, obviously the title of this thread. only the _in_math bit got cut off.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | August 8, 2010 1:18 PM

#293

... Huh. Ok. Got better that last search. Guess I was unlucky?

I'd still like any advice you can give on telling what is and isn't actually good sciencing. I know obvious things like "Templeton is bullshit" and "Look for actual control groups". I want to think that it being cited a lot is a good thing, but is that actually true? It feels a lot like saying "Well a lot of people believe it, so it must be true". Are there any sites that are really good that I should focus on? Fonts that are generally used by crazies?

Someone should make a guide to this.

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 1:22 PM

For the rest: You generally can't have it both ways. You can't make claims, assert them as gospel truth, insist that everyone else spend lots of their limited time browsing through searches for articles (and reading them, if one is able to get actual copies of the papers themselves), insist that anyone who isn't interested in devoting days (sometimes weeks, depending on the field) to a proper search acquainting themselves with the literature in a field in a lazy asshole,

People who are making assertions rather than asking honest questions about a topic they don't know about and are unwilling to take the effort and the time to learn about are lazy assholes. Most of the people behaving like that here are hostile rather than lazy, though. Pointed to articles over and over, they refuse to engage with them and keep coming back with the same bullshit.

Actually, you could do all those things, but they don't make for good debate - just lots of yelling.

There is no good debate to be had with ignorant and/or actively malicious people. Ignorant people can be educated, but they need to be willing to make the effort.

Which, of course, you will also bitch about, because that's concern trolling

*eyeroll*

and good debate is all about who can yell the loudest; it's certainly not about being productive.

For whom? Look, the post was about tackling a real problem. No one who wants to discuss ways to do this and not to do it cares if you think it's important. PZ does. We do. We don't want to debate - with citations or without - people who refuse to climb down from their stupid sexist hobby-horses that have been ridden through here dozens of times already. They can fuck off.

Professors generally don't show up for class, start telling their students shit, and then call their students lazy and stupid if they ask the professor for the source.

You entitled assholes have to knock this off. I am a professor; I am not your professor. No one is paying me to deal with you creeps. Got that? I'll do it if I damn well please. And I'm not going to bother if you've indicated that you have no real interest in learning. Moreover, I sure as hell do help my students to develop independent reading, research, and critical-thinking skills to enable them to do the work themselves.

In academic debates, people generally don't insist that the other side of the debate needs to go do more research in order to find the sources for the information being offered. They bring their sources.

In academic debates, both sides are generally equally knowledgeable on the subject and already familiar with the sources. They don't have to bring them up for every point in every discussion. Both sides are also expected to display intellectual honesty and an interest in the facts, which means coming to debates prepared. The idea that the cause of women's underrepresentation in STEM fields is innate differences is not debated by academics working on the issue because it is silly given the well-established variation, and for the other reasons discussed here and in the report I linked to above. The only reason anyone discusses it at all is that sexists won't let it die. It's been dealt with here numerous times with sources provided. Read the earlier threads and STFU.

If you've personally linked to a relevant article before, it should take you roughly a minute or less to dig it up yourself. If you're unwilling to do that, you're either lazy, spiteful, or both.

A) Bullshit. Do you know how many articles I've linked to here over the years? This isn't my fucking job.

B) Who said they were unwilling to do it?

C) On this thread, I was linking to another recent article on the topic of the thread and not the one the trolls wanted to make the topic of the thread. An article which, I'll note, was not addressed. (Just as the other one hasn't been.) If you want a fucking lit review, either learn to do a search or look through the earlier threads.

D)By that standard, you must be one lazy, spiteful ass, since you've not provided citations for any of your speculations here. Just demanded them of others. When are you going to start providing them? It's obvious to anyone who's been involved in these discussions that thought experiments, speculation, wagering, suspicions, jaqing off and the like are very often means of making insinuations and claims without having to support them. No one owes you jack shit, or cares what you think of them.

Oh, and:

Likewise, there's no way to study whether the differences are based on social pressure - nor how strongly - until you can also control for the genetic. It cuts both ways.

is garbage. No, it doesn't. The variation over short time periods and across cultures is very strong evidence against any biological "explanation." (It makes the question of what is being explained itself problematic.) Further, as in the case of the change to musicians auditioning behind a screen, the exact percentage of difference due to people's prejudice against women was determined. But this is only part of the picture. It's not just about social pressure, but institutional structures and practices and sometimes political policies. There is a huge literature on this, and I've linked to much of it here, including on this thread.

Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92 | August 8, 2010 1:54 PM

Cheers, Carlie!

quod erat demonstrandum

Posted by: skeptifem | August 8, 2010 2:12 PM

that excuse isn't going to fly with me. for one, school has fuck all to do with learning how to use google scholar, and two, I'm a high-school dropout who learned how to use it, so your educational status is no excuse.

Yep, me too.

I got into college later, but yeah, I knew how to look for research before that when I was still just a high school drop out.

Posted by: j-brisby | August 8, 2010 2:17 PM

I have a suggestion...Let's stop denying the notion of female free-will, accept that they have the full capacity to make choices that are right for them, and admit that if they don't go into maths, it's because they don't want to, and not because they've been manipulated by whatever your bogeyman of choice is.

Posted by: skeptifem | August 8, 2010 2:21 PM

Shplane-

I have no fucking clue how to navigate the 288k results for "Math and gender" on Google Scholar.

K well, I will give you a hint. The data that you were originally arguing with is labeled a meta-analysis, which means that they analyzed data from many studies from many different years. The person did the work for you. Even if there were flaws in any one study, it is unlikely that there were flaws in all of them, and the analysis gives you the names and authors of the studies so you can go and judge for yourself. Maybe you should look at the original report, pull the name/year/author of the studies used in the meta analysis, and plug THAT into google scholar. You should be directed to exactly what you want.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 8, 2010 2:26 PM

@305

What claims have I made that you'd like evidence for?

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 2:27 PM

These aren't really on an academic level at all, most of the time. Unless "you're a fucking moron" passes for an point in any academic setting.

Have you ever been in an academic debate, or a debate between academics in an informal setting? I ask because I think people have an image of them as tea parties. That hasn't been my experience.

When it comes to writing science books, authors shouldn't stop quoting a source "because I've quoted it in another other book or an article I wrote before - go read that".

Of course they should and do. They cite their earlier work. Saves space, time, and aggravation.

Yes, the caliber of debate here is lower than an academic setting.

Actually, I've found the opposite to be true.

No, all the screaming and name calling in the world is not going to make your debate point for you. What it will do is make someone ignore your posts or take you less seriously because it makes you look unreasonable.

What people are telling you is that if that someone is you, random jerk, we don't give a flying fuck.

If one don't care about that, more power to you, though it does raise the interesting question as to why you'd bother to engage in such a discussion in the first place.

Because everyone isn't a random jerk and you don't speak for every reader of this blog. Get thee to the Intersection.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 8, 2010 2:30 PM

The discussion here tends more towards the lower end of introductory level. I couldn't comment on whether that's the case because of people's education on the subject, since I generally know nothing of their education on the specific topic in question.

It's the case only because people like you keep pulling it down towards the lower end and scream when we try to upgrade it. And it's not always the case; there have been some very advanced-level discussions here, but I don't expect you to have understood that's what was going on since you refuse to engage in any of the material to begin with.

What I can comment on is that there's very little presentation of sources (I say sources loosely, because sometimes it can just be a single source), even less critical examination of said sources, and far less thorough examination of any more than one source.

Dude, again, that's because the majority of the people in the discussion have already done that, and multiple times. When I teach a junior-level evolution class, I don't have to present and analyze Watson and Crick's paper on the structure of DNA every time I talk about allele frequency changes. I assume everyone's already on the same page about that, so I can reference DNA in passing and not lose anybody. People are presenting information that they have already done all of that on; it's been filtered through to the information that has passed analysis. Just because they don't start at the beginning and go over it all in every fucking thread doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

The analogy to what you're doing is that you're interrupting a discussion about the relative impact of drift v. frequency-dependent selection in a particular population of lizards in the Hebrides by yelling that no one will explain to you how genes get transmitted from one generation to the next, and that we have no basis for our discussion if we don't stop and prove to you how meiosis and fertilization work using all appropriate primary sources.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 8, 2010 2:35 PM

Even when people on the thread have provided copious evidence of bogeymen?

Silly Rey! Those are just women talking about their personal experiences. Everyone knows that doesn't count!

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 8, 2010 2:37 PM

@312

It's the case only because people like you keep pulling it down towards the lower end and scream when we try to upgrade it.

Huh?

And it's not always the case; there have been some very advanced-level discussions here

Hence the phrase "tends". At least with regard to any issue surrounding gender.

you refuse to engage in any of the material to begin with.

Again - Huh?

that's because the majority of the people in the discussion have already done that, and multiple times.

Then it should be a snap for any of those people to provide a source if asked.

The analogy to what you're doing..

I'll give you the Huh? one more time. What exactly do you think I'm doing here?

Posted by: JeffreyD | August 8, 2010 2:39 PM

Let people be who they are.

Even when they are vicious racists or smarmy sexists? So, no one needs to do anything? The world is perfect? Step over here and admire this wonderful bridge that I can let you have for a surprisingly affordable price...cash only.

Fool.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 8, 2010 2:44 PM

Anybody who thinks that girls prefer dolls instead of trucks because of society has no business telling me to learn anything.

i see. not a friend of facts, are you.

Posted by: pteryxx | August 8, 2010 2:49 PM

So... I'm curious. What's the difference between learned helplessness and learned privilege? From here, at the moment in this thread, they both look like "I can't do that because it's too hard, someone please do it for me." And they both tend to be treated with contempt. I know Shplane called SC out, but still, it looks like a similar cognitive firewall is at work underneath... something like, "I'm saying 'this is too hard' becaue I'm afraid of what will happen if I try." Afraid of rejection, afraid of failure perhaps, or afraid of finding out something we'd rather not have had to face.

SC: thanks for the Skeptic's Toolbox link. I was trying to compose an answer and it's just too big a topic for me.

Shplane: I'd add to SC's suggestions, that analyzing weaknesses in research papers isn't simple, and it's usually taught by doing - by researchers and students hashing over articles in journal club. My suggestion would be to read the critiques and commentary on your papers of interest (and science papers on other topics in general) to get a sense for flaws.

Here's a couple of SB links that discuss interpretation:

Sex, Gender and Evolution

Stereotype Threat

Posted by: JeffreyD | August 8, 2010 2:50 PM

JeffreyD, you're an unpleasant person, and that's all time and thought I intend to expend on you. You should thank me for even that much.

Never denied my unpleasantness. Nor, since I got out of my teens, have I consciously allowed my prejudices to let me ignore reality. You seem to deny both. Oh, and thank you for ignoring me from here on out. I was terribly concerned about your rapier like wit. (A touch, a touch, I do confess.) Thankfully, now I do not need to await a reply from you.

Correction, you are both a fool and an ass.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2010 2:56 PM

What claims have I made that you'd like evidence for?

What have you been talking about? When you say you don't believe the prevailing wisdom and research is right, as you have done, you are tacitly making a claim. A claim which we intelligent regulars here recognize. A claim that the body of research is wrong. We are asking for your evidence to back your claim.

Besides, your whole argument is based on the the privilege that we must satisfy you. We don't have to. In fact, the shoe is definitely on the other foot. If you make even tacit claims, you should either back them up with evidence, or cease posting. Scientific integrity. You either have it or your don't. SC has it. I have it. Jadehawk has it. You don't. You are nobody worth talking to without it. And your denying that you made a claim is evidence of your lack of intellectual integrity.

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 2:58 PM

What claims have I made that you'd like evidence for?

How about this one?

If I had to bet as to one of the main causes of the gender disparity, I'd wager that it lay in women being, on average, more interested in pursing other non-math subjects. There's probably a social side to it as well: both the social input men and women get about what's appropriate, as well as how much an impact that information is likely to have. There could be some inertia effects.

That innate - presumably, since you've separated it off from the "social side" - differences in interest exist and are a main cause of the sex disparity.

(In light specifically of the report I linked to @ #164 and the general fact that women's interest appears to change with changes in how we're treated and the opportunities available.)

Oh, but I guess that wasn't really meant as a claim - just a wager from someone uninformed on the subject. I guess we can ignore it.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 8, 2010 3:04 PM

"Rey Fox, we all face pressures in life."

So you don't deny that there are societal forces keeping women out of science and engineering professions?

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 8, 2010 3:07 PM

@321

You're forcing the conversation to stop and pay all attention to you, you, you, so that you can get all the information you want without having to lift a finger for it.

First of all, I'm not forcing anything.

But which is it? Am I trying to get information or do I refuse to engage any of the material to begin with? At least be consistent when you're mischaracterizing me.

That even if they know the relevant literature off the top of their heads, that it takes time to find the reference online and compose a comment that links to it and explains it?

If they know it off the top of their heads I would have expected them to have read it enough that they probably have a hard copy of the paper. I keep hard copies of all the papers I've used in my research, either a pdf, a paper copy, or often both.
Yes, it takes time to write a post. It probably takes less time to write one good post detailing at least a little evidence than it does to write several posts complaining that people sometimes ask for evidence.
Even if the former takes a little more time, it's certainly a more useful debate tool, since the latter is completely useless.

The constant demands for citations and explanations keeps people from further exploring the discussion at hand, which is supposed to be how to remove the barriers that keep women from pursuing careers in maths.

I asked for two papers. The first I said I was curious to read and very briefly commented on. The second paper I asked for, in direct response to a claim about a question I had about an effect from the first, was never provided.

What unnecessarily barriers there happen to be I'd happily support to removal of. However, before you can figure out how to address said issue - or get people behind your cause - you need to figure out what those barriers are and how they're generated. If the relevant research has been done, and the people here are well-informed and knowledgeable in it, at least presenting it, some of it, instead of writing long-winded diatribes about how everyone who doesn't automatically agree is a stupid sexist, is not an unreasonable suggestion. There has to be at least one landmark paper out there to point to, no?

you refuse to believe it exists unless it is painstakingly pointed out to you

When I can think of more than one possible explanation for said difference in sex ratio employment, yes, I'd like someone who favors a certain explanation to present at least something other than invective.

But again, you're mischaracterizing my view. I have not said that such an explanation is wrong; indeed, I even agreed that it could be likely, but expressed doubts that it's the whole story, since one explanation very rarely is.

Do you at least find it a little bit ironic that after you spend a few posts trying to chew me out for having the balls to ask for two sources that you then demand j-brisby "spoon-feed" you the information he has in mind when he posted what he did? Maybe just a little?

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | August 8, 2010 3:09 PM

#322

TBH with me personally you may be on to something with the "Learned helplnessness" stuff. I don't particularly want to play the "Abuse" card though, so I won't go into it too much.

Suffice to say I have absolutely horrid social anxiety, and will wake up screaming at night and wanting to physically harm myself because of minuscule mistakes I made years ago. Things like "Made a bad joke" or "Posted something stupid on the internet". I'm working on it.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | August 8, 2010 3:13 PM

#333

I'd listen to you but I'm pretty sure you're a 4rry. Also, we do generally avoid caps and their locking. We like to pretend to by high brow.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 8, 2010 3:19 PM

But which is it? Am I trying to get information or do I refuse to engage any of the material to begin with?

you insist on information, but then refuse to engage with the information that is given. standard derailing tactic.

When I can think of more than one possible explanation for said difference in sex ratio employment, yes, I'd like someone who favors a certain explanation to present at least something other than invective.

aaand we're back at "insisting to have basics explained to him in an advanced discussion, thereby derailing that discussion".

And no, you're not worth digging through piles of dead-tree references to bring you up to speed. do your own basic research if you want to contribute to the more advanced conversations, instead of derailing those conversations.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 8, 2010 3:23 PM

demand j-brisby "spoon-feed" you the information he has in mind

what information. j-brisby's contribution to this thread has been limited to mindnumbingly stupid, reality-defying claims of uninfluenced agency.

Posted by: pteryxx | August 8, 2010 3:28 PM

to Shplane @334: You're far from alone there. I tend to be shy of posting in these discussions, even.

Anyway, scientific discussions tend to be merciless at best, and arguments often get heated even when they're not on such personal issues. One of *my* interests is in encouraging people to learn, by whatever means necessary; and I see over and over that it takes courage to learn, it involves feeling stupid and confused and making mistakes. People often need permission to learn, instead of feeling it's something they have a natural right to do. We're seeing it clearly measured in girls re math, but at some level it's near universal.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 8, 2010 3:34 PM

@326/8

That innate - presumably, since you've separated it off from the "social side" - differences in interest exist and are a main cause of the sex disparity.

You'll notice I said "If I had to bet as to one of the main reasons..". What I was very careful to not say was "This is why..." or even "This is the main reason why..." or "Discrimination plays no role...". I said so because:

Such an alternative - to the best of my knowledge - hasn't been ruled out. Likewise, the hypothesis that discrimination is the sole source hasn't been demonstrated. Otherwise we wouldn't need anymore research; we'd already have the answer.

I have no reason to suspect men and women would differ in math ability, since I have no reason to suspect that math ability was ever specifically selected for in the first place, so I wouldn't chalk the difference in math enrollment to skill. We do know that men and women are not identical in all aspects of their psychology though, so postulating that some of the difference is due to women being interested in other subjects more than math is not unreasonable. Whether they're more interested in other subjects because of their own tastes (whatever they are) or because of what they feel other people will think of it is a legitimate question.

For instance, another way to examination the question is to ask whether men or women who choose certain careers are less satisfied with them due to reasons independent of pay and external discrimination.

I raise these possibilities (note: possibilities, not definite answers) because many people seem to assume that both sexes should be equally interested in any and all tasks/jobs if not for arbitrary social pressures imposed by external discriminatory forces, an assumption which is not tenable. People have rightfully claimed you can't rule out culture as an explanation until it's controlled for. In the same vein, you can't rule out biology as explanation until it's controlled for. Note that biology can apply to things which have nothing to do with math ability, yet still affect math enrollment.

The rest of your post is non-applicable nonsense.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2010 3:39 PM

I raise these possibilities

In raising those possibilities, you are making a falsifiable claim. One you could research and present the data for. It may already be in the literature. Your failure to recognize that, and your failure to realize your possibilities is another word for trolling, makes you intellectually without a shred of integrity. Nothing but a baby who must get his own way, and destroy other peoples, more intelligent and knowledgeable people, with his inane drivel.

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 3:48 PM

You're welcome, pteryxx!

One thing I liked about it (haven't read it through closely for errors) was that it called for changes to be made that aren't specific to women. For example, I've discussed elsewhere - improving and formalizing mentoring systems in grad school and for new faculty. When things are done informally, they'll tend to work for the benefit of the already-privileged and leave others out. Also, often overlooked is that it isn't discrimination against a group in the sense we usually think of but a greater availability of benefits (or forgiveness of missteps or screw-ups) or (mentorship, research, travel, collaboration) opportunities offered to people in the privileged group. Improving and formalizing it helps everyone and keeps people from seeing it as a women/minority problem, but prevents people's being left out.

[By the way, according to (a glance at) the report, women earned about 45% of the Bachelor's degrees in math in the US over the past 25 years.]

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | August 8, 2010 3:56 PM

@Schplane: Let me introduce you to the Endless Thread: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/episode_lxxxvii_comparative_mu.php

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | August 8, 2010 4:02 PM

#350

All but the first bit of that post was on topic (Or at least as "on topic" as most of the other posts in this thread). Not sure what you're on about.

#343

You're a bit late. That discussion's kind of over now, and I'm working on exactly that bolded part.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 8, 2010 4:04 PM

@345

Why is this assumption not tenable?

Because males and females are not always subject to identical selection pressures. This is true across all manner of species, so it's awfully hard to chalk it up to culture. If we're willing to accept the idea that differences between species in behavior and psychology are due in part to genetics (which is not the same thing as genetic determinism. It has to do with what genes each organism has and how those genes are expressed in the environment they find themselves in generally), then there's no logical reason to expect that none of the differences within species are due to genetic factors.

Indeed, if it was the case that there are no differences in psychology and behavior due to genetics within any species there would be no way for there to be differences between species.

Note that my statement has nothing to do with any task in particular, just all tasks in general. If there are differences in psychology, physiology, and behavior in task X, those differences could also affect a gender's participation in task Y, even if there are no differences in ability in Y.

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 4:16 PM

You'll notice I said "If I had to bet as to one of the main reasons..". What I was very careful to not say was "This is why..." or even "This is the main reason why..." or "Discrimination plays no role...".

I don't know where else you've landed on your travels through the blogosphere, but here in Pharynguland it is not strong language or name-calling that will cause people to lose respect for you and ignore you. It is precisely this sort of rank intellectual dishonesty.

I have no reason to suspect men and women would differ in math ability, since I have no reason to suspect that math ability was ever specifically selected for in the first place, so I wouldn't chalk the difference in math enrollment to skill.

First, this question has been dealt with on this thread. There are clear reasons to dismiss this notion.

We do know that men and women are not identical in all aspects of their psychology though, so postulating that some of the difference is due to women being interested in other subjects more than math is not unreasonable.

So now you're postulating it? That's not the same as claiming, though. Right.

What difference are you seeking to explain? When? Where? At what level of study/work? Why are you choosing this one?

Whether they're more interested in other subjects because of their own tastes (whatever they are) or because of what they feel other people will think of it is a legitimate question.

What makes you think tastes are non-social?

The rest of your post is non-applicable nonsense.

Right. (I hope you're reading this exchange, shplane.)

I said so because:

Such an alternative - to the best of my knowledge - hasn't been ruled out.

You haven't demonstrated knowledge even of the research that's been posted in this thread.

Likewise, the hypothesis that discrimination is the sole source hasn't been demonstrated.

Whose hypothesis was that? Point to it. What do you mean by discrimination?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 8, 2010 4:23 PM

Here's a way to approach a new topic that you don't know much about, learning something in the process and without pissing off everyone discussing it:

1. See post. Think "Huh, they're saying that X is the cause of Y? I haven't heard that, or I have heard it and not been too sure of it. I think it may be Z, but I haven't really looked into it and everyone discussing it seems to be pretty convinced that it's X."

2. Think "I'll look this up and see what I find."

3. Search for topic, look at the first few results that seem to be valid and reputable. Especially look at ones that appear to be meta-studies or summaries or reviews. Spend 20 minutes or so reading over them.

4. Decide whether you think that the idea that X is the cause is well-supported based on what you find. If not, then search for your preferred cause Z, repeat #3 for your cause.

5. If you found something to support Z, go ahead and weigh in with that to see what happens. If you don't find support for Z, but have questions about something you found that supported X, go ahead and ask.

See? Not too hard.

What makes you an entitled asshole:

1. See post. Think "Huh, they're saying that X is the cause of Y? I haven't heard that, or I have heard it and not been too sure of it. I think it may be Z, but I haven't really looked into it and everyone discussing it seems to be pretty convinced that it's X."

2. Tell everyone on the thread that they're wrong, because you think it's Z.

3. Tell them to prove that you're wrong.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2010 4:29 PM

I see the troll N still doesn't seem to understand that the social scientists have addressed most his concerns from the get-go. But then, if he never looks at the evidence he could never see that. All he has is inane uninformed opinion. Doesn't want the facts getting in the way of expressing his stoopidity. And thinking scientists don't know how to do their job (by the scientists considering his possibilities years ago) is grade A stoopid right there. And his inability to do a literature search says how stoopid he is. Even an old fart like me can figure it out how to use google scholar...

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 8, 2010 4:40 PM

I don't know why everyone assumes I'm not interested in the literature. If I wasn't, I wouldn't ask for it. I'm busy looking over that 134 page monster paper posted above. Hate to break it to you, but literature does not get absorbed by opening it on a computer screen. Getting through that and tracking down the original source material when needed could take days.

I also don't know why everyone seems to be assumes I'm saying discrimination plays no role. I thought I was very careful to make sure I never said that. I question whether there isn't more than one interpretation for the data out there.

In engineering, women have higher attrition rates than their male peers have, despite similar levels of stated satisfaction and education.

That was a rather interesting quote from "why so few", since it deals directly with a question I asked before. I'm hoping it has more to say about the issue because on its own, that's not very informative; that requires tracking down the original sources to see how they defined and measured their terms. Patience people.

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 5:19 PM

If anyone's not yet overwhelmed:

http://www.portal.advance.vt.edu/Categories/Resources/Reading%20List.html

Getting through that and tracking down the original source material when needed could take days.

In the meantime and until you can post something meaningful and substantive, kindly STFU on the subject.

By the way,

Of course some evolutionary psychology (which is kind of a misnomer, since there isn't any non-evolutionary psychology)

If Richard Fucking Dawkins (TM) wasn't able to get away with that here, you're not going to either.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2010 5:24 PM

If I wasn't, I wouldn't ask for it.

That's the problem. If you want our respect, try "this is what I believe, and this is the evidence to back it up with citations." Your "possiblities" route is for losers and trolls. Since it appears to be all you have, I think you are both. So, until you have your evidence, shut the fuck up loser troll.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2010 5:29 PM

Oh, and fuckwit N, you are wrong until you prove yourself right with conclusive evidence. Welcome to real science. Something you appear to know nothing about...

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 8, 2010 5:39 PM

@367

Why did you link me to the ramblings of someone who conflates evolutionary psychology with genetic determinism?

It has nothing to do with the fact you're either proposing that psychology and behavior -irrespective of what view you favor about said psychology and behavior - is the product of evolution or it isn't.

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 5:45 PM

Why did you link me to the ramblings of someone who conflates evolutionary psychology with genetic determinism?

Did you read the posts in question? Are you capable of deriving meaning from text?

It has nothing to do with the fact you're either proposing that psychology and behavior -irrespective of what view you favor about said psychology and behavior - is the product of evolution or it isn't.

Gah, you're stupid. What I'm saying is about evo psych and its practitioners.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2010 5:48 PM

But wanking all over the thread with your pet ideas when you've not had the time to engage the literature yet is fucking dumb.

QFT.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | August 8, 2010 6:13 PM

SC @#367,

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/baby_bears_lament_james_wood_i.php#comment-1886193

Damn, I remember that thread... looking back at it, I was an embarrassingly doctrinaire idiot in those days. :-(

(Not that that has anything to do with the issue at hand, as there were several discussions going on at once on that thread.)

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 6:33 PM

Damn, I remember that thread... looking back at it, I was an embarrassingly doctrinaire idiot in those days. :-(

Funnily enough, when I was skimming through it looking for the specific posts, I was thinking how impressed I am with you and your willingness and ability to change your views based on acquired knowledge. Nothing embarrassing about that. With no intention of being condescending - although it'll undoubtedly sound it - I'm really proud of you.

Posted by: David Marjanović | August 8, 2010 7:14 PM

I agree with comment 249.

evolutionary psychology (which is kind of a misnomer, since there isn't any non-evolutionary psychology)

What do you mean? There's lots of psychology that behaves as if it could ignore evolution altogether.

Judging from comment 365, you seem to mean "thoughts" by "psychology". Most other people mean the study of thoughts.

my local university's engineering programme was very heavily male-dominated, to the point where female students were raped at class parties. And it wasn't just one episode! It was the mid-1990's and still, nothing ever came of it. Nobody was thrown out of the programme.

<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>

I am meaning to stop this, to the blog. I am not getting one message to you. I know I have a new way of thought

That's one way to put it.

Another is: you need professional help.

Or whatever numbskull arguing goes for flirting in West Virginia.

X-D

Now if I could get the youngest to admit there is more to life than black...

there is?

:-) Well, I've caught you wearing a purple top, as well as a blouse-jacket-thingy that had plenty of turquoise and silver in it. And your sandals aren't black either. Ooh, and there's that white baseball cap... :-þ

(Nitpicking can be fun!!!1!)

For the rest: You generally can't have it both ways. You can't make claims, assert them as gospel truth, insist that everyone else spend lots of their limited time browsing through searches for articles (and reading them, if one is able to get actual copies of the papers themselves), insist that anyone who isn't interested in devoting days (sometimes weeks, depending on the field) to a proper search acquainting themselves with the literature in a field in a lazy asshole, while also bitching at them for not automatically supporting you even if what you're saying is perfectly true.

It's easy: if you can't get the information you need to keep discussing, all you can reasonably do is GTFO. :-|

I'd still like any advice you can give on telling what is and isn't actually good sciencing. I know obvious things like "Templeton is bullshit" and "Look for actual control groups". I want to think that it being cited a lot is a good thing, but is that actually true? It feels a lot like saying "Well a lot of people believe it, so it must be true". Are there any sites that are really good that I should focus on? Fonts that are generally used by crazies?

:-D :-D :-D

You're on the right track about control groups. Beyond that, there's pretty much only the basic stuff: Does the conclusion really follow from the data? Are there alternative explanations for the data, and how parsimonious are they? Is the dataset big enough? Is the statistics part of the paper any good (that's basic but sometimes very difficult stuff)?

Citations are good. Stuff that is wrong is cited by the paper that shows it to be wrong, but that basically is it. Stuff that is right gets cited again and again, as in "standing on the shoulders of giants". Of course, it has to be kept in mind how many people there are in a given field: if there are only 20 specialists on a topic worldwide, a paper on that subject can't get 100 citations, period.

Big & famous journals tend to have good papers, and one measure for how big & famous a journal is is its impact factor, which indicates how often papers in that journal are cited on average. (If it hasn't got any, that means the papers in it are hardly ever cited.) Journals that have an impact factor brag a lot about it; it's always easy to find on their websites. However, there are huge differences between different fields there, see above.

Anybody who thinks that girls prefer dolls instead of trucks because of society has no business telling me to learn anything.

Do girls even prefer dolls over trucks, and more so than boys do, if all else is equal?

You're not even asking the right question. TSIB.

When it comes to writing science books, authors shouldn't stop quoting a source "because I've quoted it in another other book or an article I wrote before - go read that".

Of course they should and do. They cite their earlier work. Saves space, time, and aggravation.

Er... what?

People don't usually quote sources, but they do cite them instead of citing their earlier citations of them. This is to avoid the impression that they want to (fraudulently) claim they were the ones who came up with the idea in question/gathered the data in question.

JeffreyD, you're an unpleasant person, and that's all time and thought I intend to expend on you. You should thank me for even that much.

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Dude, that's a textbook example of an argumentum ad hominem. Look up what that means, and weep.

There has to be at least one landmark paper out there to point to, no?

There are entire fields without landmark papers out there, young padawan – or with 20 landmark papers that are all equally visible landmarks (so you need to know them all), depending on your definition of "landmark".

A little late, but Rorschach, don't you think "your" woman is capable of defending herself? FFS.

Don't worry, it's just an inside joke. :-)

It has to do with what genes each organism has and how those genes are expressed in the environment they find themselves in generally), then there's no logical reason to expect that none of the differences within species are due to genetic factors.

But why should ability for and/or inclination to math be among the differences that are due to genetic factors?

Especially considering the fact that, as mentioned upthread, the difference in ability has disappeared in the USA within the last 20 years?

<crickets>

I don't know why everyone assumes I'm not interested in the literature. If I wasn't, I wouldn't ask for it. I'm busy looking over that 134 page monster paper posted above. Hate to break it to you, but literature does not get absorbed by opening it on a computer screen. Getting through that and tracking down the original source material when needed could take days.

Then come back to this thread after those days you mention.

:-|

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 7:25 PM

Well, I've caught you wearing a purple top,

"I remember every detail. The Germans wore..."

Oh, wait. :)

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 7:32 PM

Er... what?

People don't usually quote sources, but they do cite them instead of citing their earlier citations of them. This is to avoid the impression that they want to (fraudulently) claim they were the ones who came up with the idea in question/gathered the data in question.

Er... what? If you've argued the matter before, you would say "As discussed in my earlier work (Marjanović 2008), blah blah blah." You wouldn't recapitulate the entire piece, would you?

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 8, 2010 8:04 PM

@372

What I'm saying is about evo psych and its practitioners.

Than talk about specific practitioners instead of posting to something unrelated written by someone who doesn't seem to know what they're talking about. They're all quite different in what they think about a lot of things.

@373

But wanking all over the thread with your pet ideas when you've not had the time to engage the literature yet is fucking dumb.

You have a bit of an assumption problem. You assume I know nothing about the matter in question. You assume my knowledge of other bits of human behavior and psychology are irrelevant. You assumed my hypothesis was invalid. You assume I discounted your hypothesis completely. Why you and others keep assuming these things and more is quite strange when everyone keeps accusing me of not engaging. It's all very strange.

Nothing I've seen so far has said the potential I raised isn't one possibly valid way to examine the data. So either people here are "wanking" about their pet ideas and/or they've never considered any alternative explanations.

@375

Actually the whole article deserves thorough examination, since it's covering a multifaceted problem.

Of course it does. The problem is multifaceted, which is kind of what I've been trying to say. Are you done trying to play "pin the opinion on the commenter?"

which possible difference in interest is just one facet.

It's of interest to me because it's specifically one I mentioned here. The one people keep telling to shut up about, the one I apparently don't know anything about.

I'm not sure how many times I can kindly ask people to stop reading things into what I say, because there's no other reason you'd post that. I specifically said there were lots of possibilities and many have a role to play.

Given the two possibilities, either significant innate gender differences in interests exist or do not exist, you're concerned only with guarding the hypothesis "Differences exist" because the alternative hypothesis is "untenable" to you.

Yes; it is untenable to say "there are no differences between men and women in terms of their psychology" because mountains of evidence go against it. Whether there are differences in particular jobs or tasks because of differences in skill or motivation or interest etc. is a different debate entirely that needs to be taken at a case by case basis.

You are not having a scientific discussion if you refuse to even consider an alternate hypothesis.

Two things:
1) When did I refuse to consider alternative hypotheses to the addition ideas I posed? Is it where I explicitly said they probably play a role, or where I suggested there are probably no differences in math ability based on gender?
2) Say that to just about everyone on this thread who refuses to consider any other hypothesis that isn't "it's all about discrimination".

I really don't see us fighting a different battle. The problem is everyone - you included - keep reading things into my posts that aren't there.

And given that research is presently demonstrating a pattern of cultural bias that creates illusory "innate gender differences" where none exist, the alternative to your particular innate-differences hypothesis deserves your attention and respect.

I want to see if you got what my hypothesis is actually correct, because I already know you're trying to respond to points I haven't tried to make.

What do you think my hypothesis is?

@379

You want to say that psychology and behaviour are the results of evolution, you're by default saying that they're the result of genetic determinism.

I'll give you two alternatives:
1) No, I'm not. You retract your statement because you admit you don't know what you're talking about.

2) You're saying the same thing I am, unless you imagine that (A) the brain didn't evolve or (B)psychology and behavior have nothing to do with the brain.

Take your pick.

@380

What do you mean?

See 365. Other branches could ignore evolution altogether but they do so at their peril. I suppose the rest of biology could ignore evolution too, but that would probably not help biologists understand their field well

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 8:12 PM

Bingo time!

Love the Bingo. :D (Thank you.) Hate the intro. :(

Than talk about specific practitioners instead of posting to something unrelated

WTF?

written by someone who doesn't seem to know what they're talking about.

Dawkins?

They're all quite different in what they think about a lot of things.

The point is that No. (And you might want to read the rest of that thread.)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 8, 2010 8:16 PM

I'll give you two alternatives: 1) No, I'm not. You retract your statement because you admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Are you saying that I defined evolution wrong? Oh, pray tell, please enlighten me with the correct definition of evolution. I can't wait to hear it.

2) You're saying the same thing I am, unless you imagine that (A) the brain didn't evolve or (B)psychology and behavior have nothing to do with the brain.

Take your pick.

Cultural memes move through society horizontally. Sorry, that's not evolution, unless you're using the most colloquial sense of the word, which is entirely inappropriate in this situation and with the argument you're trying to make.

Seriously, learn to understand what you're talking about before you say it.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 8, 2010 8:19 PM

...are very strong proofevidence that...

fixed. sorry 'bout that.

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 8:50 PM

Perhaps fortunately, I have no idea what you're talking about. :-)

Casablanca reference. Sorry. :/

If I've discussed the work of other people, I absolutely must cite them, lest anyone might get the idea that I'm saying any idea that wasn't mine was mine. At most, I can cite someone else's review paper and add "and references therein".

This is not my experience. If you've discussed it, you cite your discussion of it.

Is this handled differently in the humanities?

I wouldn't know. :) (Well, I would, but that isn't my area.)

Posted by: pteryxx | August 8, 2010 9:31 PM

MrN @386:

I want to see if you got what my hypothesis is actually correct, because I already know you're trying to respond to points I haven't tried to make.

What do you think my hypothesis is?

I, personally, am responding to this: (@344)

...because many people seem to assume that both sexes should be equally interested in any and all tasks/jobs if not for arbitrary social pressures imposed by external discriminatory forces, an assumption which is not tenable.

and I responded @345:

Why is this assumption not tenable?

There are only two possible hypotheses: In the absence of divisive social pressures, either both sexes are equally interested in any task/job, or they are not. Why is one supposition more tenable than the other?

Your response, that males and females are not identical because of (etc), does not imply significant innate differences in interest, as you claim it does. Measurable psychological variations do not imply innate difference. Even self-reported differences in interest cannot be ascribed to innate factors, because of the social biases that Why So Few is reporting on.

What has been repeatedly shown is that cultural and social factors create gender bias, that this bias is widespread, pervasive, and powerful, that it can account for most if not all of measured disparities, and that many gender differences once ascribed to innate factors have been disproven or erased.

Which in turn, suggests that "both sexes should be equally interested in any and all tasks/jobs if not for arbitrary social pressures" is a reasonable, useful, and strongly supported hypothesis. It's certainly better supported than the alternative.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 8, 2010 9:39 PM

@389

Your hypothesis isn't relevant to the discussion this thread was supposed to be about, since this thread was supposed to be about the social differences, which do exist.

It's an absolutely relevant idea worth taking seriously if you want a better understandings as to the "whys" of the issue. If the issue is that there's a gender imbalance in a certain field, and you want to 'correct' that imbalance, it helps to know what the actual causes of the imbalance are in the first place. If you aren't sure of the causes, your attempts to change anything are more likely to be misguided.

@390

Seriously, learn to understand what you're talking about before you say it.

I couldn't give you better advice, since you don't seem to understand what I'm talking about.

Either you agree with my propositions from 365:

Our psychology and behavior is the product of our brain.
Our brain is the partially the product of our genes.
Our genes are the product of evolution.

It logically follows that our psychology and behavior are the product of evolution.

In which case you're just as much of a genetic determinist that I am

Or

You disagree with one or more of those propositions, in which case you're a psychological creationist and academically insane.

FYI: Memetics doesn't seem to have a way to differentiate 'design features' of a meme from design features of an organism. It's a metaphor that got over-extended, past it's point of usefulness. It will not resuscitate the idea that there are no innate differences between men and women as groups. Try again.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 8, 2010 9:43 PM

If you aren't sure of the causes, your attempts to change anything are more likely to be misguided.

1)we are sure of the existence of social causes 2)the fact that some cultures don't have these disparities suggests that social causes are the only relevant ones needed to alter the situation.

so again: why do we need to care about an unneeded hypothesis?

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 8, 2010 9:56 PM

MrNaglfar (#365)

Our psychology and behavior is the product of our brain.
Our brain is the [sic] partially the product of our genes.
Our genes are the product of evolution.
It logically follows that our psychology and behavior are the product of evolution. [emphasis added]

It only logically follows when you assume the other stuff implied by the word "partially" is inconsequential. And it's already been shown here many times that the other stuff is not inconsequential. So congratulations, you fail at logic.

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 9:59 PM

It's an absolutely relevant idea worth taking seriously if you want a better understandings as to the "whys" of the issue. If the issue is that there's a gender imbalance in a certain field, and you want to 'correct' that imbalance, it helps to know what the actual causes of the imbalance are in the first place.

What imbalance? Where? When?

If you aren't sure of the causes,

Of what?

your attempts to change anything are more likely to be misguided.

Given that you're ignorant of both the situation and the serious explanations, you're obviously misguided. GO. AWAY.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2010 10:02 PM

Yawn, fuckwit N still pontificating without evidence. Guess what is written all over your post N the boy. It isn't intelligent and insightful...

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 8, 2010 10:03 PM

did you not read anything in this thread? The theory of what needs to be done (removal of teacher-bias, sexual harrasment, formalized mentoring guidelines, etc.) is already present, and demonstrated to have worked in other countries; the execution is a separate issue, and was supposed to be what we wanted to discuss in this thread.

That was before you decided to derail it with an unneeded hypothesis.

Let me repeat that: your hypothesis has been demonstrated to be unneeded, since changing social factors entirely removes the disparity.

So, what is your point again? merely that these biological differences might exist, to some tiny degree? well, whoop-dee-doo. For purely academic interest, that might be relevant. For practical purposes of eliminating disparities it is not, because if it even exists, it's a negligible effect.

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 8, 2010 10:04 PM

@401

Jesus Imaginary Christ. Are you always that intentional dense?

I added that partially clause so as to ensure that no one would accuse me of trying to cut out environmental influences. Because they do matter. It does not depend on those other things being inconsequential, just points out that there are degrees of how much each matters. Genes do not exist in a void, so of course other things matter.

I've never once - not once - said the other things are inconsequential. That's the reason I said I wasn't a genetic determinist in the first place.

That doesn't change the fact that all psychology is evolutionary in nature. Like how all hearts are.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 8, 2010 10:06 PM

EDIT:

removal of teacher bias, better sexual harassment policies and better enforcement, official mentoring guidelines.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 8, 2010 10:11 PM

That doesn't change the fact that all psychology is evolutionary in nature.

Meaning what, exactly? And you still haven't shown that you even understand what the word "evolution" means.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2010 10:15 PM

Yawn. Boring troll. Can't even define his terms, much less present evidence. All attitude and ignorance. Typical. Fuckwit N, you haven't done anything to present your case yet. So lose the 'tude. Otherwise, we will definitely return your scorn...

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 8, 2010 10:18 PM

MrNaglfar (#402)

I added that partially clause so as to ensure that no one would accuse me of trying to cut out environmental influences. Because they do matter. It does not depend on those other things being inconsequential, just points out that there are degrees of how much each matters.

Yet you did cut them out by concluding from your premises "our psychology and behavior are the product of evolution" rather than "our psychology and behavior are partially the product of evolution."

I've never once - not once - said the other things are inconsequential.

You're begging the question by exluding "other things" from your conclusion. Don't get mad at me because you fail at logic.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2010 10:23 PM

If you disagree with any of the three, then you're either a creationist or so pant-on-head retarded as to probably require live-in care.

No that is you who need live in care. You have nothing cogent to say, but think you do. You have made bald assertions without evidence. Only losers and trolls do that. You have nothing there in a scientific sense, just three random unrelated factoids. So you are just wasting your time here. Ours us used to ridicule fools like you. You choice fuckwit.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 8, 2010 10:49 PM

your reading comprehension is shit. what did you not understand about the part where this thread was supposed to be about how tho achieve the things I mentioned?

I also notice that you're now focusing on solutions. Is my lack of suggestions how to implement the anti-discrimination measures in any way relevant to the uselessness of your hypothesis to this subject?

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 10:59 PM

Oh, good. Your solution to end discrimination is to end discrimination. I don't know how I ever doubted your insight, evidenced by other societies which are free of gender discrimination.

How much time did you invest in that plan? I'm not sure I'm quite clever enough to have ever come up with such a plan.

Try reading.

If you diagree with me, you're viagrically raised and artificially inseminated.

Posted by: SC OM | August 8, 2010 11:07 PM

Sometimes I really wish I could draw Venn diagrams here.

Flirt. You know that's my thing. :)

Posted by: MrNaglfar | August 9, 2010 12:07 AM

@404

Children all over the country went wild over a small accessory called "Silly Bandz" this last year. No child had ever wanted or needed one before, but suddenly their behavior changed. They craved them. They cried for them. They couldn't bear to be without them. That was a distinct change than their behavior had been previously. Are you seriously willing to claim that their behavior in begging for Silly Bandz was a result of evolution? Because that's what you've just said, that behavior is a result of evolution.

There are degrees of stupid things I can deal with. Congratulations. This goes above and beyond.

What you see is a change in proximate behavior, not underlying psychological mechanisms.

At least you've convinced me to not bother anymore. To seriously suggest such a stupid thing and actually think that's what I'm suggesting is about all I can take. You people are beyond education at this point, in this place. You're too lodged in your intellectual quagmire. There's nothing I can say to help you because you won't even be able to understand what I'm talking about. I'm out.

Posted by: SC OM | August 9, 2010 12:57 AM

Oh, and 8.9 on the YAM scale.

Posted by: skeptifem | August 9, 2010 1:23 AM

j brisby

Skeptifem, obviously it drives you crazy that not all women are like you. It's a shameful attitude, and not at all in sync with the 'enlightened' self-image you obviously wish to hold. Let people be who they are.

Yeah, it isn't like I argue passionately about the rights of women whose situation I do not share (mothers, prostitutes, women of color, poor women, etc) /sarcasm. Fuck off, you don't know what you are talking about.

Posted by: Kagato | August 9, 2010 2:57 AM

Anybody who thinks that girls prefer dolls instead of trucks because of society has no business telling me to learn anything.

Because of course, girls are genetically predisposed to playing with dolls, and boys are evolutionarily adapted to play with trucks.

Of course these interests are due to social environment. What a stupid statement.
Trucks do not occur naturally in the wild.

Do girls even prefer dolls over trucks, and more so than boys do, if all else is equal?

"If all else is equal" is the obvious catch there; "all else" clearly isn't. But it's damn subtle at times, I have to say.

My daughter is nearly 3, and a friend's son is a similar age. Through no overt influence on our part -- quite the opposite at times -- she's still developed a strong interest in dolls & dollhouses (and the colour pink), and he's a little truck & train maniac.

It's almost eerie the way it seemed to happen all by itself. But of course it didn't, and couldn't have. There are blatant influences, like the layout of toy departments in shops, or television; and more subtle cues, such as the toys she sees other children playing with.

She's started to pick up some negative biases in toys more recently, too. At our local toy library, I suggested she try out a car or truck toy on a whim, and she replied "no, that's a boy's toy. I want a girl's toy". I explained she could play with anything she liked, but the bias is already in place, and it's hard to say where it came from. I suspect her childcare centre; it's a great place, but the environment probably makes for an early echo-chamber for subconscious biases. Just seeing all those boys playing with trucks and all those girls playing with dolls reinforces that's the way the world is (even though the staff encourage all the kids to play with all of the different toys).

It's not an absolute thing though. She still plays with the Matchbox cars on occasion, and has shown a cursory interest in my box of old Transformers ("car robots"). And you can bet as soon as she's old enough, she'll be introduced to Lego! (The proper stuff, not that Duplo shite she's stuck with for now.)

Posted by: Rorschach | August 9, 2010 5:33 AM

If you disagree with me, you are a horticultural noncognitivist and transcendentally beetroot-flavoured.

You have a talent there Walton...:-)

Posted by: Scented Nectar | August 9, 2010 6:07 AM

I can't help jumping in again. It seems that the whole evo psych thing is being freaked at due to the possibility of its misuse. In other words, if something were to show that women weren't as good at something as men, like math, there is the chance that it will be an excuse to keep women out of certain fields etc. At the extreme seems to be the fear that evo will be used as an excuse to justify/excuse rape.

Ok, those are valid fears of information misuse/abuse, but I think that regardless, if there are any actual psych differences that are biologically based, we can't just go "la la la la la".

From what I'm reading so far, it doesn't look like any of the evopsych-accused are making any specific certain claims, such as "women are genetically inferior at math" etc, just that in general some psych differences may or may not be there and that it's valid to look into them.

MrNaglfar wrote:

Our psychology and behavior is the product of our brain.
Our brain is the partially the product of our genes.
Our genes are the product of evolution.

Maybe people are missing the word PARTIALLY. Of course cultural influence plays a huge role, but how can anyone say for certain that it is everything? Since we know that all the body is stuffed full of genes, and that the brain is not exempt from that magically, obviously it's quite plausible that a bit of psych stuff might be of the evo variety. Are people really evil misogynists for looking into it?

It seems that when sensitive 'I've been oppressed' issues come into play, healthy objective research and speculation is expected to be temporarily not used for fear of offense. Fuck that.

As a sneery sidenote to this comment, I have to wonder. If the evopsych researchers found that women were BETTER at math, I wonder what the comments here would look like. I'm not wondering too hard. I kind of know.

Jadehawk, OM wrote:

gender disparity doesn't exist where gender discrimination has been eliminated.

What example society are you referring to as one where gender discrimination is not there? Or do you mean some specific disparities only under controlled settings? In which case, are you referring to math, or something else specifically?

seemeisie wrote:

And that was in 2004.

Mine was in the early 80s. I'm a bit surprised whenever I hear about that still happening. It takes a while for society to change on things, I guess. I've seen a lot of steady changes over the years, but we're not quite there yet. It seems to be happening surprisingly fast though, or then again I might just not be realizing how old I've been getting and how many years have been flying past! :)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 9, 2010 6:40 AM

It seems that the whole evo psych thing is being freaked at due to the possibility of its misuse.

No, more because there hasn't been any evidence ever shown to support it in the case of women's abiities in math.

just that in general some psych differences may or may not be there and that it's valid to look into them.

Do you think no one has? Do you think that you're the first person in the world to come up with this idea, and that no one who is trained in it has ever had the same idea or done any research? That's a huge source of the frustration; you throw it out there and expect other people to admire your fantastic idea and take it seriously when it has already been rejected on the basis of lacking evidence. Yet you don't know, because you yourself refuse to even do a cursory look to see if it's there or not. (I am using "you" as a substitute for not just you, but everyone who has been arguing as you have.)

What example society are you referring to as one where gender discrimination is not there?

Guess what? That kind of data has already been spoon-fed in the form of more than one link in this very thread. The fact that you're asking indicates that you are arguing in bad faith, because you won't even take the time to read what people provide directly to you.

Posted by: John Morales | August 9, 2010 7:32 AM

SN,

Of course cultural influence plays a huge role, but how can anyone say for certain that it is everything?

Gah! That's a straw dummy.

--

Are you familiar with the classic "Black doll, White doll" demonstration?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 9, 2010 8:07 AM

SN - what Nerd said. There is an awful lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc going on, or rationalizing after the fact. To illustrate: women do most of the dishes. A lot of evo-psych people will ask (and manage to publish papers on) "what is it about women that makes them better suited to washing dishes?" This is wrong, because they assume a priori that there is some evolutionary reason that women are better at washing dishes to be found (this is part of the error that MrN was making as well). The actual question should be "why do women do all the dish-washing?" That they are somehow evolutionarily suited for it is only one of many possible explanations, but a lot of evo-psych assumes that there's a biological explanation and goes off in search of finding/creating the answer to that rather than first determining whether it is the explanation in the first place.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 9, 2010 9:11 AM

Carlie @444:

I'm counting minutes before someone takes this

The actual question should be "why do women do all the dish-washing?"

out of context and starts arguing that surely it isn't so, guys do the dishes quite often, too, thank you very much.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2010 9:37 AM

I'm ok with speculation, as long as it is not claimed to be any more likely or certain than what there's evidence for.

If you find any real physical evidence let us know. From what I've seen it is all personal opinion and bad philosophy.

After having so many people here put words in my mouth and different meanings than I meant over at those other two recent threads, and after seeing anti-rape men being told they were rapists,

You appear to have comprehension problems. The men were accused of being rape apologists, not rapists. If your words weren't taken the way you meant them, may they weren't said right. Communication problems. Check the mirror before you blame us.

Posted by: Miki Z | August 9, 2010 9:53 AM

If you had to be the best⁴ (best of the best of the best of the best) to work in math, it might make sense to worry about exactly how big any biological effect size is. However, that's just not the case -- working in math requires that you develop a fair level of proficiency and then love it enough to work up to the next level. I love mathematics, but it's already hard enough; if I had to put up with sexist bullshit and assumptions about my abilities based on my lack of a penis, I don't know if I'd stick with it. It's not like the women who could qualify in math don't have other options.

Women aren't suffering from a lack of mathematics so much as mathematics is suffering from a lack of women. It's not impossible for a woman to get into math as a profession, but in many places it does seem insufferable.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 9, 2010 10:52 AM

and which I don't see any of the andrists disputing (at least not directly), is that barriers and outside discrimination should be removed.

They have been, by claiming that it's not really worth figuring that out until there is research into whether it's more of a genetic thing than a societal problem. When shown research that indicates that it isn't a genetic thing, and asked for any evidence that it's a genetic thing, they just keep saying "But it could be genetic!"

In terms of actionable ideas - NSF funds a great deal of programs designed to get girls involved in science and math and engineering, and they tend to have a pretty tight hold on not funding things that don't work. I don't have time to search now, but glancing through funded projects in those areas yields a lot of good ideas on things that have been tried and analyzed as to how well they work. The problem is that they are all by necessity small-scale, and we aren't yet at the point of being able to track entire generations of women's careers to see how much influence those programs/projects have had yet.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 9, 2010 11:14 AM

Scented Nectar (#438)

Maybe people are missing the word PARTIALLY.

Maybe you're missing the fact that PARTIALLY was left out of his conclusion. See my #402 and #418.

Of course cultural influence plays a huge role, but how can anyone say for certain that it is everything?

No one's saying that.

(#441)

the evo side seems (I'm not sure on details) to be finding indicators (not evidence maybe but at least supporting stuff) of possible gender psych traits.

What indicators? What supporting stuff are they finding? If you're so unsure of the details you can't say, then admit you're too ignorant to speak sensibly about this and shut the fuck up.

(#445)

After having so many people here put words in my mouth...

Gee, wasn't it you who was just saying "how can anyone say for certain that [cultural influence] is everything?" when no one's saying that?

Posted by: Scented Nectar | August 9, 2010 12:49 PM

Nerd of Redhead, OM wrote:

If you find any real physical evidence let us know. From what I've seen it is all personal opinion and bad philosophy.

After the reverse sexist bullshit and the overboard seeing-sexism-everywhere that I've seen from many of you on the other comment threads, I hope you don't mind if I don't just take your word on that.

You appear to have comprehension problems. The men were accused of being rape apologists, not rapists.

Some were actually called rapists. I'm not going to sift through over 1000 comments to find them. Many more were called apologists, when none of them were doing so that I could see. They made it quite clear that they were not promoting or excusing sexual nonconsent. That's a little beyond paraphrasing or even ordinary misinterpretation on the accusers' parts.

If your words weren't taken the way you meant them, may they weren't said right. Communication problems. Check the mirror before you blame us.

If I wasn't all sleepy from a nap just now, I'd be coming up with (hopefully funny) sarcastic jokes about irony and victim blaming. I'm sure you get the idea, heheheh.

SC OM wrote:

See: vervets.

Huh? See them where? In reference to evo-psych, or something about trucks, or somewhere specific like at blog comments here?

legistech wrote:

Actually, that's exactly what Nerd said: that evo-psych tends to be hijacked by ideologues, not that there's a (top-down) conspiracy.

Then why do people in this thread seem to want to dump evo psych as a whole? What about the parts that might actually have something to it? The bathwater should be checked for babies before it's tossed out the window altogether. If it turns out there are absolutely no babies there at all, fine, but has anyone concluded that for sure?

Carlie wrote:

They have been, by claiming that it's not really worth figuring that out until there is research into whether it's more of a genetic thing than a societal problem. When shown research that indicates that it isn't a genetic thing, and asked for any evidence that it's a genetic thing, they just keep saying "But it could be genetic!"

No one has shown any evidence of ALL psychological gender differences being societal. Until there is, it is quite valid to look into, at least until it is overwhelmingly unlikely or impossible, kind of like god belief, only there are no supporting evidence indicators for gods! At least the evopsych types feel they have enough science in their favour to give it a level of plausibility.

I'd give examples, but I don't know enough details yet to do it properly or to know which ones are even defendable, since some may indeed turn out to be biased. I'm sure going to look into the subject a bit sometime soon. I love a contraversy to dig into! Especially when I see my old cult sisters with their backs up and making possibly overboard "you're a patriarchal/sexist/misogynist/etc" claims.

A. Noyd wrote:

Maybe you're missing the fact that PARTIALLY was left out of his conclusion. See my #402 and #418.

In 402, he does say 'partially'. You even bolded his word for him. After that you made an illogical argument about his wording. Then in 418, you don't like how he left the word out of a conclusion sentence. I would agree if it could only be meaning the genetic part of this, but the word 'evolve' could also be seen to include all the sexist cultural memes too, in which case the word fits. Or maybe he left it out by accident. Or maybe he meant something a little different or needing further explanation. No matter which way he meant it, he makes it very very clear in 410 that what you are claiming he concludes are NOT what he concludes. He is NOT rejecting environmental/cultural influences.

Gee, wasn't it you who was just saying "how can anyone say for certain that [cultural influence] is everything?" when no one's saying that?

Really? No one is saying to totally disregard any and all possible genetically based differences wherever they might relate to the brain/psychology/behaviour? Are you really really sure? No one at all is saying that it is impossible for any psych stuff to be biological and not strictly cultural/societal/environmental etc? No one saying that it is a definite pseudo science with absolute certainty? Are we reading the same comment page?

Posted by: Scented Nectar | August 9, 2010 1:34 PM

Oops,

"Really? No one is saying to totally disregard any and all possible genetically based differences wherever they might relate to the brain/psychology/behaviour?"

should be...

"Really? No one is saying to totally disregard any and all possibilities of genetically based differences wherever they might relate to the brain/psychology/behaviour?"

Posted by: Scented Nectar | August 9, 2010 1:53 PM

pteryxx wrote:

Simply put: social effects are so large that even if biological differences exist they are insignificant.

Until there are numbers showing that insignificance in ALL the possible areas (not just math), then there are going to be people wondering if some things are of higher significance than they really are.

Unfortunately, since there are no societies around that are missing cultural gender influences, there is no quick and sure way to be fairly certain that genetics are insignificant in ALL aspects of psychology and behaviour as a whole.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 9, 2010 2:05 PM

Scented Nectar (#456)

In 402, he does say 'partially'. You even bolded his word for him.

Yes, to emphasize that it was not carried over into his conclusion. Do you understand how logic works? If something was mentioned in a premise, it has to either be demonstrated to be inconsequential or accounted for in the conclusion. MrNaglfar did neither; he simply assumed away that part of his premise.

After that you made an illogical argument about his wording.

What was illogical? "Our brain is the [sic] partially the product of our genes" does, in fact, imply that our brain is the product of other things than genes. While in #365 MrNaglfar did also say of our psychology and behavior that it isn't "defined down to every last detail" by evolution, he contradicted himself in the same sentence by saying "there really isn't any alternative outside of 'our psychology and behavior is not the product of evolution'."

I would agree if it could only be meaning the genetic part of this, but the word 'evolve' could also be seen to include all the sexist cultural memes too, in which case the word fits.

He's trying to say "sexist cultural memes" are genetic products of evolution. But go ahead, show me where we're supposed to insert "sexist cultural memes" into that syllogism to get his conclusion to follow from his premises.

No matter which way he meant it, he makes it very very clear in 410 that what you are claiming he concludes are NOT what he concludes. He is NOT rejecting environmental/cultural influences.

Then why aren't they accounted for in his conclusion? It would be very, very easy to carry over that "partially" into his conclusion, but that didn't happen. Whatever he meant to say, what he did say doesn't follow from his premises.

Really? No one is saying to totally disregard any and all possible genetically based differences wherever they might relate to the brain/psychology/behaviour? Are you really really sure?

It would be very easy for you to disprove this by quoting people who are saying for certain that cultural influence is everything. Go on, try.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 9, 2010 3:26 PM

andrists? *sigh*

Huh? See them where? In reference to evo-psych, or something about trucks, or somewhere specific like at blog comments here?

so you're completely ignorant of the discipline you defend? *facepalm*

At least the evopsych types feel they have enough science in their favour to give it a level of plausibility.

erm... the apologists also feel they have enough evidence in their favor. what sort of argument is that?

Until there are numbers showing that insignificance in ALL the possible areas (not just math), then there are going to be people wondering if some things are of higher significance than they really are.

Unfortunately, since there are no societies around that are missing cultural gender influences, there is no quick and sure way to be fairly certain that genetics are insignificant in ALL aspects of psychology and behaviour as a whole.

what? how often does "well, this time it's surely biological!" need to be shown to be wrong before we stop assuming it as the default hypothesis that needs to be disproven? unless there's some actual evidence for a behavior being based on biology and not culture, there's no reason to entertain the hypothesis at all; at most, we could stay agnostic towards it, and focus on the stuff we do know about.

Besides, we don't even need a society that's completely free of discrimination; all we need to look is the immense variation between cultures in expressing a particular trait to know that if there's a biological difference, it's being completely overwhelmed by cultural effects.

What's the original topic of this thread? Women in MATH. What do we see in our studies? Big social influences. What's one of those influences? The assumption that female achievements are less valuable, which colors everything up to and including experimental design and interpretation, if we don't specifically control for it.

that just needed to be repeated.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | August 9, 2010 6:06 PM

A. Noyd wrote:

"Our brain is the [sic] partially the product of our genes" does, in fact, imply that our brain is the product of other things than genes.

Let me fix that for you:

"Our brain is the [sic] partially the product of our genes" does, in fact, imply that our brain is PARTIALLY the product of other things than genes.

*snicker*

It would be very easy for you to disprove this by quoting people who are saying for certain that cultural influence is everything. Go on, try.

Too much work. You can easily do it yourself. Just quote to yourself the people here who say evo psych is all pseudo, opinion, and totally lacking in evidence.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2010 8:24 PM

Too much work.

You maka dah claim, like evo-psych is meaningful, you suppla the citations. Or shutta the fucka up. Welcome to real science, which requires real facts. From those making claims against the present knowledge like you sister.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 9, 2010 9:20 PM

Trucks do not occur naturally in the wild.

Tell that to the vervets, man!

Priceless.

Posted by: Riptide | August 10, 2010 6:36 PM

I may be in a relatively unique position to comment on this social phenomenon, being a male mathematics major at a former (and still predominantly) all-female University. The sex ratio of the overall student body is between 70-80% female with the remainder mostly male (intersex or others number in the dozens, at the most). When one restricts the view to the sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, comp., and math), it is between 50-60% female, and when specifically investigating the math department, the student body is 60-70% male-dominated (and at least half of the women who are math majors do it to go onto B.Ed, to teach primary and secondary school, instead of actual math-centric careers).

This despite the fact that throughout the University's history its administration has been dominated by women, and the culture on campus is extremely female-positive (about which I'm not complaining at all). Before I came to this school I shared the perception that it must be a "soft" school, or not as good somehow as the more technically-oriented University which is three times as big. I realize now that this is because of the casual sexism I had acquired without realizing it.

Two years with hard-core (female) math teachers has thoroughly disabused me of that notion. I've also taken high-level math classes at the "big boy" school (which is the only licensed engineering and medical school in the province); in my experience these classes and their students are not much different in difficulty and ability than classes I've taken at the "little girl's" school from which I shall be proud to graduate. The perception amongst others persists, though, that my school is only good at churning out teachers and not scientists. And while there are deficiencies in the math and computer curriculum, these are more easily explained by the size of the school and its resources, as well as the serious science candidates opting to go to the "big boy" school.

We must ask a series of questions in order to properly analyze the situation.

1)Is the gender disparity a problem?
2)What role does biology play in said disparity?
3)What is the most effective means of addressing the disparity?

There may be others, but these three are the first we shall consider.

1: Of course it is a problem; when society is completely predicated upon science and technology, which is most easily accessible through mathematics, those with the deepest mathematical knowledge will wield more power on average than those who don't. That women are a minority in math classes in the most woman-friendly academic environment I've ever encountered presents a deep and abiding problem for the future of gender equity, wherein the technologically and scientifically literate are mostly men.

2: As has been adressed here ad nauseum, biological differences between the genders remain controversial. I remain entirely unconvinced that one's sexual gender provides any actual information whatsoever about one's personality, aspirations, talents and abilities. I've known enough effiminate men, masculine women, intersex people and "alternative lifestylists" to believe that many (if not all) traits of sexuality and individuality are formed post-natally. If genes provide any determination of behavior, it is to tendency, not to strict outcome. I've seen no convinving evidence that males and females are neurochemically distinct based on their having ovaries versus testes.

3: There is good evidence that the disparity is dissippating, however slowly. What remains (as has been demonstrated) is peoples' perceptions, both of themselves and one another. We need to abolish the misapprehension that some people just "don't get math," male or famele. Have you ever heard any native English speaker say they "just don't get English," or that they're "not an English person"? If someone is so willfully illiterate they are at best mocked for it, but when similar attitudes are expressed with respect to mathematics there's a tacit understanding, even agreement.

Partly this stemps from a misunderstanding of what mathematics are. Earlier, glowball said

I had some trouble with some of the later calculus (the proofs, not the 'real math' bits)

Which is indicative of this misunderstanding. Real maths ARE theorems and their proofs; math problems are applications of theorems, kind of like low-level experiments are tests of scientific laws. Math problems just happen to be a hell of a lot cheaper than lab work.

It is still a staple in North America that girls are told, from a very early age, that maths are too hard. This dovetails nicely with the general theme of PZ's blog: among many religious households women are kept as ignorant as possible of mathematics and their options with the field. My spouse, for example, was actively discouraged from studying math for any purpose other than becoming a teacher, which was seen as the only respectable out-of-household career path for a woman in her religious community. This certainly needs to change, or at least be acknowledged as part of the problem.

Unfortunately a popular solution to this seems to be a dumbing down of math for everyone, which is causing a much deeper social fissure than between men and women. Indeed, the gap between the mathematically literate and the mathematically illiterate grows every year, with more and more of our society based upon mathematics but with relatively fewer people capable of grasping those maths. Kids need to get exposed to symbolic logic and algebra in primary school, about the same time they're learning language and reading. Teachers need to learn and appreciate actual abstract algebra, and use "regular" algebra as a vehicle through which children learn arithmetic, fractions, negative numbers, and other tools essential for a functioning modern adult. Make it accessible and interesting, rather than a bunch of seemingly-pointless rote memorization. It's shameful that most kids don't actually get to experience the beauty of maths until they're halfway through a major in the subject in Uni. If we are to continue functioning as a modern society, we need many more scientists, engineers and, yes, mathematicians.

Although it is interesting watching people bicker about maths, many of whom could not grasp much less prove much of the theoretical underpinnings of the network and machine through which they pursue their argument. (For those interested, see: Linear Algebra (for drawing pretty pictures), Graph Theory (network analysis), Group Theory (cryptography and Internet security), Analysis (digital signal processing, electrodynamics, etc)).

Posted by: MarcTheEngineer | August 12, 2010 6:07 PM

You can actually explain the tendency for more men to engage in certain activities (such as STEM subjects) on the basis of average physical characteristics (which are different between men and women).

Nobody can argue that men have more testosterone on average than women and a recent study just determined/confirmed that higher testosterone levels tend to result in a higher tendency towards risk-taking (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080929144124.htm).

So - Men, who on average have more testosterone, will therefore be on average more likely to engage in risky behaviours than women. Lemme think on an anecdote that would confirm this... becoming homeless is largely the result of making poor choices that leave you without a safety net - making excessively risky choices - Men compromise 80% of the homeless... works for me.

Anyways - What does this have to do with male dominance in STEM subjects?

Here we go - STEM subjects are widely considered more difficult than liberal arts subjects. More difficult = more likely to fail = riskier. Both men and women drop out (Fail out) of STEM subjects at a MUCH greater rate than liberal arts subjects.

There we go, a reason based solely on proven (relatively) biology for the stickyness of a male dominated STEM landscape.

Posted by: MarcTheEngineer | August 13, 2010 10:26 AM

The second part of your comment makes no sense with respect to my comment. I commented on a biological reason for men to be more likely to enroll in STEM subjects, not on aptitude - Check your premises before you make a complete ass of yourself.

I'm not sure how being part of a majority group is in any way a privilege nowadays... I'm lucky that I happen to have Aboriginal blood - It meant that I got significant financial help that my "privileged" white Caucasian friends had absolutely no access to. Nearly every single one of my female engineering friends whose grades were anywhere near decent (B and higher) got scholarships as well... not so for my male engineering friends who were so lucky to have been born with Caucasian privilege.

It's funny too - when looking at the grants handed out for the Master's program suddenly the people for whom english was their first language were first in line (after female engineers and english first language visible minorities like myself) because the graduate program was/is mostly foreign students.

Even when it came to industrial positions for coop - the ladies in my Tech Soc. were getting double the interviews of the guys in my Tech Soc. (Don't say better resumés either - I ended up rewriting the resumes of almost every fellow student in my tec soc, they were all pretty similar)

This is the age of the privileged minority.

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | August 13, 2010 11:48 AM

I am tired of members of a minority—namely, males—whining about how it's unfair to "privilege" "minorities" when their advantages are taken away.

Posted by: MarcTheEngineer | August 13, 2010 12:45 PM

It's funny that you call me a caveman when your only contribution to my original thought was intellectually dishonest ad hominem attacks.

The comment about lack of mentoring is hilarious - On my campus there were 3 groups whose sole purpose was for providing support and mentoring for women in the sciences (WISE, a section of the engineering student society and a third whose name I can't remember) - There was a specific group for mentoring aboriginals.

Any specific groups offering support, mentoring, free tutoring, really anything for someone without "minority status" - Nope... How is STEM much riskier for women anymore - Reduced financial risk, a run of programs which give them specific advantage over their "privileged" counterparts, advantages in grant procurement for graduate research (I believe their is a spin-off of NSERC which focusses on providing grants to women) and the fact that with very few exceptions industry seems to preferentially hire minorities to seem more "diverse" (This would be my personal experience. The instant I added membership to ENGAP, an aboriginal engineering student group, to my resumé I started getting calls for every job I applied for).

I AM a privileged minority - I've experienced the privilege of being a minority aboriginal and I resent it. Looking back I can't say for sure that I earned everything I've achieved because I had so much given to me... I can't tell if I really was top of my class because I had an unfair advantage.

I've seen what a sense of total entitlement to advantage based on something other than merit has done to my people - It is not worth it - It makes you lazy, it makes you an underachiever.

Finally I didn't say the inequity was 100% because of testosterone - Just that some part of it IS biological.

Posted by: MarcTheEngineer | August 13, 2010 2:58 PM

From that report - "Women cited feelings of isolation, an unsupportive work environment, extreme work schedules, and unclear rules about advancement and success as major factors in their decision to leave."

I can assure you - Isolation, unsupportive environment (I.E. the business grads crawling up your ass for results), extreme work schedules (yep... 60 hour work weeks are fairly common when shit gets busy) and unclear rules about advancement and success (Yeh generally there are no rules - You need to outcompete your peers to advance... part of which means working a 60 hour week) - All these things male engineers experience just as much... they just suck it up (men are consistently told from a young age that life sucks, man up and deal with it - Don't quit on something just because you aren't happy doing it, etc.) and therefore stay in industry longer, advance further.

Women aren't being treated unfairly but when they feel like a job sucks shit they leave where men stay - I think most feminists would have a problem educating young girls to learn to "man up" and stick with something even if it makes you unhappy (Actually I believe the common discourse is the OPPOSITE... if it makes you unhappy you should feel empowered to leave it... although this is generally in reference to their romantic relationships)

Posted by: pteryxx | August 19, 2010 10:37 PM

From the Aug 15 Guardian:

Male and female ability differences down to socialization, not genetics

Posted by: John Morales | April 23, 2011 8:05 PM

[meta]

Behold jmorgan, cyber-necromancer, at work!

--

PS "taboos", eh?

Civilisation must be a scourge unto your free-yearning soul.

Posted by: jmorgan1234533 | April 23, 2011 8:29 PM

Nerd of Redhead

Thanks for your two inconsequential links, What a brilliant scam to double one up so it looks like three.

Here's one for you. It has some substance to it, and each word needs reading carefully, but I expect you're up to it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=girl-brain-boy-brain

Now continue to argue that we need to sweep such propositions as mine under the rug.