Quote:
Originally Posted by tofu
first you go read the actual study - not just newspaper articles about it. The study found that while average scores are about even, there is a small difference in variance.
|
No, the study found there was not a significant difference in variance. Past studies have claimed there was a significant difference in variance, the article clearly quotes the study as saying this is not the case:
"For example, they compared the variability in boys' and girls' math scores, the idea being that if more boys fell into the top scoring percentiles than girls, the variance in their scores would be greater.
Again, the effort uncovered little difference, as did a comparison of how well boys and girls did on questions requiring complex problem solving."
I will presume you don't need an explanation of the difference between your reference to a "small difference" and what is actually a statistically significant difference, as that is basic statistical analysis.
Quote:
|
This, in spite the obvious problems with the study, namely that they used State assessment tests that are not difficult enough to properly reveal any difference.
|
And what
evidence can you cite that a more difficult test would reveal a difference? Just making up more arguments out of thin air, apparently. Or, if your point is that this study differs from smaller studies done in 1995, then I would simply say "well what a difference a decade and a more complete survey make".
Quote:
|
If I gave every member of this forum a math test with questions like, "what's 2+2" then I would find that nearly everyone could score 100% and I could proudly claim no differences between the genders.
|
And the relevance of this absurd argument is...? Are you claiming that everyone scored 100% on the exams in the OP study? I think you overestimate the math capabilities of the tested individuals, as
DrRocket pointed out. Even the OP article said that the real issue here has nothing to do with gender differences, it has to do with widespread and prevailing lack of a stress on teaching analytical skills to both genders.
Quote:
|
The tests they used are the product of No Child Left Behind, which means every school teaches to this test - preparing students to pass this test.
|
And that means it doesn't test math aptitude, because...? Last I checked, aptitude involved the ability to be taught.
Quote:
|
A real study would use sufficiently difficult questions so that the average score was somewhere in the middle.
|
Now the study is not "real"? It is what, fake? The only thing fake here is the claim that a more difficult test would be more appropriate for probing innate differences in aptitude.
Quote:
|
The one I especially like is Hedges and Nowell, 1995. This is well-established scientific fact. People like you, who have a moral objection and an emotional investment likely squelch or bias other research.
|
I already pointed to the simple logical fallacy in your claims about that study in the thread. Those fallacies put the lie to your incorrect conclusions about my "moral objections". My objections are scientific, and I'm happy to repeat them one more time:
The study you refer to is not in any way controlled for environmental factors. As such, the finding of increased variance cannot be traced to innate gender differences, and is in fact quite easily accounted for as an environmental factor. If boys who show promise are mentored by their male mathematics teachers, they will likely excel, and if boys who are good in sports and show less mathematical promise are discouraged from redressing their shortcomings, they will fall behind the curve. I cannot say for sure that is what is happening, but it seems a far cry more likely than invented innate differences. In any event, the logic is that the claim of any innate difference is simply not supported by the study you quote, and I'll bet they do not claim it does, being competant scientists.
If this point is still not clear to you, I would point out a similar example. If you look at the top scores in mathematics competitions in high schools in the US, you will always find asian students are disproportionately represented, by a large factor. By your logic, this implies asians have a difference in innate math ability. By my logic, it means no such thing, for it could also be (and likely is) a cultural difference about educational priorities among asian children.
Quote:
|
I wanted to bring to your attention the fact that it's not OK to revert to name-calling when you meet someone with whom you disagree.
|
That complaint is just in your mind, it has no relevance to anything transpiring in the written record of this thread. I told you already once that it was irrelevant, because in fact I have not called you any names, but now you repeat the complaint again, and again with no basis in fact. What I have done is point to the list of logical fallacies you are stringing together here. And here is just one more-- I said you failed to demonstrate any flaws in my summary (and indeed, above I am forced to repeat something I already pointed out in the thread). You come back with a reference to name calling. If you equate the two, then those words don't mean what you think they mean. (And that is also not name calling-- it is simply a statement of logical fact.)
Quote:
|
I'm content with the findings of the Hyde study, and the one that posted above.
|
Then you are "content" with a study that in no way establishes innate gender differences. In fact, it doesn't even claim that it establishes that-- since those scientists understand the difference.
Quote:
|
Do you think there are any average cognitive differences at all between males and females?
|
As you still don't seem to understand the difference, I have to ask: do you mean, innate genetic cognitive differences linked to the y chromosome, or cognitive differences linked to environmental factors?
ETA:
This question is relevant to issues such as appears in
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0124104155.htm, which states:
"When coupled with strong implicit stereotypes about females' math competence, those women who do maintain strong identification with being female may be particularly vulnerable to leaving math and science fields, regardless of their mathematical prowess. Thus it appears that even when consciously disavowing stereotypes, female math students are still susceptible to negative perceptions of their ability. "
This is the kind of issue that any scientific effort to establish innate differences will need to control for, and indeed I not only suggested ways it can be controlled for, but other studies were cited in the thread that did exactly that. Guess what they found?