I fear you completely missed my point on this one, I regret I was so unclear. If you had understood at all what I was saying, you would know that the Hyde study, and its "states," has nothing whatever to do with my point here. So let me try again: look up the results of any US high school mathematics competition you like. Any one. Now, I'm telling you that you will find in the top performers a percentage of asian-americans that is far higher than their overall representation in whatever population is local to those schools. Do you doubt it? If you do not, then I would be very interested in hearing why you don't think your exact same logic must lead you to conclude that if men are innately better at math than are women, then asian males must be innately better, by a large margin, than white males. For some reason, I suspect that would be a bitter pill for you, but it's just your own logic. Personally, I can look to environment as the key factor there, but you, alas, cannot. So don't accept my expectation there, just live in a world where asians are innately better in math than are whites. I'm glad you think this is a competition, but I'm afraid if it were that, it would require judges-- and that's where you would have a problem counting your "victory." You see, all I have to do is peruse your latest post to find where you addressed the issue of separating innate and environmental factors. I'm sure it must be there somewhere, as I've made it so perfectly clear that this is in fact the crux of the whole issue, and indeed your own posts have used the word "innate" to describe the aptitude differences that you are talking about. Strange, I missed where you covered that in my initial reading. Hmm, nope, it isn't there at all, is it? Why not? Check and mate, I leave it to the judges.