Or not, if the cultural prejudice happens to be correct.

Agreed.

The fact, Ken G, that you want "scientific reality" to "trump cultural prejudice" suggests a bias on your part. You're going looking for data that contradicts the generally accepted view on the subject.

As such you will choose to throw any data * supporting * the prevailing view out the window and keep hunting for the "trump card" that proves your case.

__________________

You are definitely reading the right thread, and reading it well.

I am not familiar with any of those, so I won't comment on them specifically.

If you wish to discuss the percentages of homosexuals in human populations and the difficulties in estimating such percentages reliably, please open a new thread.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Incorrect. We still want the scientific truth to trump the cultural prejudice, even if the prejudice "happens to be correct". A blind squirrel gets an acorn now and then too-- but that's no reason to not try to give the squirrel vision.

That statement assumes "trump" means "contradict". I mean it more in the sense of "replace", so your statement is false, as it fails its assumptions.
I will not choose to do that-- as I have said many times, the problem in this thread is not all the supporting data I have had to throw out, it is the complete absence of controlled supporting data in the first place. If there's any "side" to this argument that is clinging to beliefs despite how it forces the rationalization of data, I think that side is quite obvious.

If you think there is a "complete absence of controlled supporting data" then you clearly have not Googled it, even once.

I find your complete inability to accept any of the evidence that has already been presented as evidence of genetic difference to be an unmistakable sign of bias.

I've already done the googling, as have others such as Neverfly and publius.

We've shown that tests clearly demonstrate a gender difference in brain activity during tasks such as language and mathematics. We've further demonstrated that hormones are the likely cause (transgender examples), and that the effect is not only psychological but physical as well, as demonstrated in post-mortem exams.

We've also pointed out an array of other genetic differences that are clearly documented, such as a propensity for depression in women that is not equivalent to social pressures. Men who are unemployed, living on the streets, alcoholics, and drug addicts, are still less likely to be depressed than women who are having mild stressors in everyday life.

There has also been evidence presented of both surveys and standardized testing that further delineates these differences, and their effect on scholastic performance.

And there is no doubt a further mountain of evidence (there have been thousands of studies done) adding yet more data to support the theory of genetically caused difference.

If you will not bother to look at the preponderance of evidence in front of you, then yes, you are fishing and handpicking for the data you personally want to fit your pet theory. I can only conclude that it is many years of political correctness and sensitivity training that causes such a biased, emotional view of the issue.

We've already discussed how I feel about PC - this is another example of how it goes wrong, in the skewing of data and the biasing of otherwise intelligent and insightful scientists.

You're an extremely intelligent and conscientious person from what I've seen, but you have a blind spot in this matter and in supporting the injustice that is being perpetrated in the name of equality and sensitivity.

__________________

Even without studies and statistics or before getting started on those, there's still a couple of broad logical points to contend with here.

First, there's the fact that certain gross cultural prescriptions for the division of labor are universal to this species, no matter which culture you're looking at, which indicates that those are the things that people feel internally drawn to do of their own accord. Otherwise, if it weren't in their built-in nature to gravitate toward those basic, broad roles, then it could just as easily have ended up different in different cultures. (And I trust that it goes without saying that having a personal desire/motivation to do something leads to becoming better at it than somebody who lacks that.)

Second, there's the fact that, in nature, animals' brains are always tuned to do the job that their bodies are. Moles don't just have digging bodies; they also have minds that WANT to dig and are GOOD at the skills that it requires. Eagles don't just have flying bodies; they also WANT to fly and are GOOD at those skills. Felines don't just have predatory bodies; they have minds that WANT to jump on moving prey animals and force them down, and are GOOD at those skills. Behavior shows that the mind is always "designed" to do the same stuff as the body, so even in the complete absence of other information (about newly discovered species, for example), different bodies clearly indicate different behaviors, and thus different minds to do the behaving.

Those aren't exactly detailed scientific research results, but they're solid enough common scientific sense to establish what our starting point has to be and where the burden of proof lies. The default position has to be that men's and women's different bodies and universal cultural roles must both be associated with specific differences between male and female minds. And the burden has to be on someone who counterintuitively claims otherwise, to prove it and explain how it can possibly be so: how can something that's not built-in end up universal when there are so many cultures with various other differences, and how can two groups of critters have bodies that are designed for different tasks but minds that aren't? And that is a case that nobody has made.

You need to think harder about the meaning of the word "controlled".

The problem with this "evidence" you mention is that none of it is relevant to the nature vs. nurture question on the table here. All of your evidence, all of it, is merely evidence that there are different levels of accomplishment in regard to math and analytic thinking between men and women, and that there are genetic differences of a virtually unknown relation to math skills. Yes or no?

Futhermore, the evidence is so paltry and unfocused that the argument keeps shifting. At one point, the argument is that men evolved to be better at math by virtue of what they did in ancient societies. Oh, but it's not that they do better on average, we're told, they just have higher variance so they excel more (I already pointed out the prevalence of asian-descended Americans who dominate the outliers in math achievement, but strangely no one suggested that they evolved differently over there than we did over here). Next we hear men do better by one standard deviation in some studies and not others, and that's supposed to mean something. Sorry, I see a lot of junk and not a lot of controlled data with careful science.

And even with this horrendously muddled status of the differences or lack of differences in school and on math exams, how does that in any way inform the nature vs. nurture issue? I already mentioned the most staggeringly obvious example of African slaves in the south of the US in the 1600s, and I pointed out that every single bit of the evidence that you present here could also be used there, to look at accomplishment differences, to look at physiological differences, and draw all the same conclusions about math skills. And it would be obvious schlock, because the nature vs. nurture issue would be spectacularly obvious. Now, what aspect of your argument, this "evidence" I'm too biased to see, wouldn't apply there as well?

And I note they have noticed how that information does not differentiate between nature and nurture. So where is your evidence that is does? I'm still waiting.Yes, I know that. Now, back to the nature vs. nurture issue you keep avoiding-- let's look at the slaves again and try your same argument. Revealing?

Oh my goodness, you actually think that transgender examples have anything to say here? You think the role of hormones in transgendered individuals is understood at all? You think the size of tha statistical sample is meaningful, when we heard above that when you look at all women you only get a single standard deviation difference in some studies (which is the statistical expectation, by the way)? This evidence is paltry, and in no way supports the thesis.
So, now the argument is that depression is a barrier to good math skills? Strange, I had been led to believe that there was a correlation between depression and advanced intelligence, and I know of quite a few mathematicians who committed suicide. Please connect the logical dots where high depression rates are causal for poor innate math abilities.
And the study in the OP is not the most exhaustive study of that nature you can name?

I must have missed the memo on that, as did the uber-study in the OP.
Thank you, but I have simply seen how logical holes in an argument can lead people down the primrose path of false conclusions so easily. I merely require that the holes be plugged, or there is no argument. That's science.

Quite. For example there's never been a society where the norm was that young women go off to war while young men stay at home and perform domestic chores, nor one where a woman's wealth was reflected in the number of her husbands. I don't know of a society that had more female mathematicians than male ones either.

That's a good point.

Let me see if I understand your "logic". You seem to be saying that the mind of an animal naturally evolves in concert with its behavior, and women in all cultures engage in certain different behaviors than men (you mentioned warfare but I might imagine the even more obvious example of bearing children). Now I presume this is somehow intended to dovetail with the proposition that women's minds are innately less good at math, as that is the question on the table. So, what do you think is the logical connection there? You mentioned that women are less physically belligerent than men, and less physically strong, so they are not generally the soldiers in many cultures. I pointed out they bear children. Now, is this supposed to make them better, or worse, in math? I'm not following, because when I think of what soldiers do, and what mothers do, I don't see the part where one is more necessary to develop math skills than the other.

Hunting and combat are applied physics and geometry, as are sports and tinkering with cars and even video games. I say "applied" because they're things you can do without having the formal training we associate with the words "physics" and "geometry" now and without being able to do the precise calculations that are taught in such classes. Math only comes up in formal classroom physics and geometry. But having an interest in, or experience with, or a mind that's designed for, the applied stuff, helps with the learning of the formal stuff and the math that describes it. Then, what's taught in the formal classes is just another way of describing the same principles you're already familiar with from other contexts. That makes equations not distant and abstract, but something you can feel.

As are prioritizing caregiving tasks on any given day, as are deciding an efficient way to plant a field, as are any number of other stereotypically female tasks you might care to examine from ancient cultures (modern issues like cars and video games are obviously irrelevant to this entire discussion, or do you hold to Lamarckian evolution?). Again you have completely failed to insert any degree of controls, the entire argument is pseudoscientific rationalization. That continues to be the prevailing problem here-- it doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it not even wrong.

That's twice now in your last two posts that you've claimed I had said or done something that I hadn't. That kind of sloppiness indicates motivation and pre-determination. I could counter the part of your post that was actually related to my point, but you've proven that it's not worth the bother. I don't normally waste time trying to get through to an audience that's obviously not listening.

Because that's so patently obvious as to not bother commenting on. Of * course * they evolved differently. A different climate, different social pressures, different resources and leadership structure (the Mongols for instance) - all of those things lead to calculation being valued over communication and more likely to be a trait passed down.

Wow. You're aware that your own argument has been disproven. I never expected you to acknowledge it.

Not really. Slavery lasted for, approximately, 300-400 years as an institution that persecuted black people. That is not nearly enough time for evolution to take hold. Especially when you consider that the slaves that were brought here were not an isolated gene pool. New infusions came on a constant basis from Africa. And many of the African-Americans who are here today are descended entirely from ancestors who were free, but decided to leave other nations for a chance at the American dream.

My sister's husband, for example, is from Kenya. He immigrated here for a career after graduating from university.

My nieces and nephew, all of them of mixed ethnicity, are from the same group that I am describing, those who are here not because of slavery but because of opportunity.

Take a look at a calendar. This is not 1600. Women are not slaves, they are not denied education, and by and large the institutional reluctance to accept women as equals is fading. It's been 54 years since women first joined the workforce to help out in WWII. For anyone to still hold a prejudice that they are not capable employees means that they have been living under a rock for all that time.

I am not arguing that women * can not * do great things in math and science. They already have, and will continue to do so. I am simply arguing that the gap between male and female employment in these fields is not due to social bias alone.

Excelling more, but failing spectacularly more often, is the very definition of "on average."

Scores between men and women are about even because there are more bad male pupils and more prodigious male pupils. Women usually score about average.

The gap we see between women and men in science and mathematics related fields has to do partly with the fact that employers value * excellence * in an employee, not adequacy.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. As should have been obvious from the post, I was pointing out yet another instance in which genetic difference has been proven.

I would point out, since you brought it up, that depression could easily be a barrier not to mathematic aptitude, but to mathematics performance. It's hard to get a top job with Lockheed Martin when you don't want to get out of bed in the morning. Or go to a university and get good grades, and study for standardized tests.

However, that handicap still remains a genetic one.

The article does not mention the difference in achievement levels above and below average. Read the WSJ link I provided earlier. It notes that while the averages came out more or less the same for the two genders, that there are more males in the highest percentiles than females, and more males in the lowest percentiles.

That is part of the reason why there is an institutional gender gap in employment in these fields. When selecting candidates you want someone who scored 99% not someone who scored 80% or lower.

On the contrary, it is you who have logic that is full of holes. You propose a theory of absolute, complete nurture caused problems, and then do nothing but provide rhetoric in support of it. Science is entirely missing from your side of the aisle.

Present some evidence and I'll look at it with an open mind.

But while you continue to throw rocks at every piece of evidence we've provided while not bothering to present any yourself, I can't take your view seriously.

__________________

Agreed. He's started putting words in other people's mouths, which is a definite sign of desperation.

Why is this so important to you Ken G?

If it is genetically caused, then one day the political correctness police can genetically engineer us into balance in math, spatial acuity, language, and communication.

Is that not good enough for you?

If it were a nurture problem as you suggest then the problem is that "we think they're not typically as good" - so the only way to combat that is education. But the only way to get everyone to agree there's no difference would be to make it a crime to think otherwise. There's a word for that: thoughtcrime.

__________________

I have no idea what you are talking about, frankly. What I am saying is quite simple: it is a purely junk-science case that has been made in this thread that women are innately worse at mathematics, for the simple reason that none of the data you and others have claimed support that idea are controlled for the obvious cultural pressures they are subject to.

Now how can I say that any more clearly? What are you objecting to, exactly, do you think you have actually made that case, despite all the ways I have shown that you have not? Or are you claiming that is not the position you are arguing? If you think I'm saying anything else here, you should review my posts.

Hi!!

when I was at school girls generally did better(higher grades).Not because they were smarter its because they were more mature and responsible than boys.

I enjoyed school and did alright,when I went to university studied psychology (it isn't real its black and white generalisation)....I LEARNT HOW TO THINK FOR MYSELF WITH +VE THINKING AND EXPERIENCE!...NOT FROM A TEXTBOOK OR SOMEONE ELSES IGNORANCE!

PL

PL

That's all I needed to know-- you actually do believe that Asians have evolved to be better at math, and that's why they dominate at the highest levels of high-school mathematics competitions. To me, that says all I need to know about the logic of your argument about women.But surely the millenia of evolution of "his people" were under quite a bit different circumstances as your own, easily as different as women versus men. So it should seem perfectly plausible that his mental capabilities are genetically quite a bit different from yours. I wouldn't plan to be in the room, if I were you, when you suggest that to him.
That's not the issue here at all. If it is your goal to establish that genetic difference exist between men and women, I refer you to the X vs. Y chromosome. The point is hardly under contention here. What is under contention is that there is data that is controlled for societal pressures that shows women are worse than men at math. That is the sole topic of this thread, despite all your efforts to confuse it with irrelevant side issues.

Indeed, I referred to that. And I also noted that it did not corroborate your claims that men evolved under different conditions so they should not have the same abilities as women, even on the average. Why do you think that, if evolution can produce differing math capabilities, that it did not do so in the average for men and women? I'm all ears. You see, I don't believe that the X versus Y chromosome, which last I checked was the only difference between men and women, are responsible for mathematical aptitude differences, period. Furthermore, that position is obviously the rational default position to take, until proven otherwise with controlled data. That is precisely what is lacking, and continues to be lacking even in that long list of irrelevant factors that you give which are indeed ruled by the X versus Y chromosome (some more apparent than others, vive la difference).
Again, my position is quite simple-- societal pressures that divide men and women are perfectly obvious, they require no standardized tests to establish. When there is an obvious source of differences in the accomplishment of men and women, it is the default position that if some other pressure is being claimed to be significant, evidence is required to make that argument. It is absurd to claim that I should need to provide evidence that the X vs. Y chromosome produces no mathematical aptitude differences-- it is appallingly insulting to women to adopt as the default that there is an aptitude difference in the absence of evidence either way.

And by the way, above I got Delvo's answer to why Asian-Americans score consistently at the top in high-school math competitions-- he thinks they evolved to do that, like the women in your own argument. Is that your position also? If not, why do you think the Asian-American argument is somehow different from the women vs. men argument you are embracing? That is precisely the kind of rationalization I am saying is the hallmark of junk science.

Anecdotal as Ken G will be the first to point out, but I agree - boys are doing better on standardized tests in spite of the educational system's bias against boys and the emotional issues that many fail to overcome early in school.

I think the problem is that PC-oriented people equate "different" with "bad."

Nothing could be further from the truth. When we talk about a dyslexic person, that is clearly a genetically caused problem. But that doesn't mean they can't overcome it and excel, it just means they'll have to use different approaches to get there.

And with every weakness comes a strength. Dyslexic people tend to have very high intelligence and above average mathematics and science aptitude.

__________________

Your experience gibes with data I've heard referred to, that girls generally do better in school than boys at all age levels. However, I'm curious why you rationalize that as being because of a maturity difference? I'm not saying you are wrong, in truth I have no idea why that is-- I merely point out the convenience of saying "it's maturity" when girls get better grades, but "it's innate intellect" when they do worse on math exams. Both are pure rationalization, I urge instead that we reserve judgement on the reason when socialization differences are already a clear and present influence, and we need scientific controls to conclude there is any other reason for either of those effects.

Go outside and find an African-American or an Asian person - if you can in your neighborhood.

See any differences? Like, oh, I don't know, a different skin pigmentation, bone structure, height, hair color, or eye color? Yes?

Well, gee, how did that happen? We obviously were all more or less the same when we originally evolved. Our bodies changed to be most suited to the environment we inhabited. To suggest that our skill aptitudes may have evolved differently as well based on different needs is not at all a leap of the imagination.

__________________

Another rationalization. Your logic here is that girls get better grades, not because they are smarter, but because they receive preferred treatment! But if boys do better on certain cherry-picked tests, that's innate intelligence. You just keep pilling the rationalizations up higher. Have you ever heard of "scientific controls"? They were invented to avoid the need for such convenient untested rationalization of data.

And your point is? Because people have superficial differences controlled by some tiny subset of their genetic material, they therefore have profoundly different mental aptitudes? And your evidence for that is....? (Again, this pesky habit of mine of asking for controlled evidence. How annoying, I see why it is so frustrating.)
But you are not merely suggesting they "may" have evolved to have different aptitudes, you are claiming that they did so evolve, and your sole evidence for this is data that is not controlled for discrimination and societal influences. That is the fallacy in your logic, it has nothing to do with what "may" be, but what "is", and how we establish what is.

If there are clear gender differences between girls and boys that may be addressed.

But try this: dig out your school reports that your teachers gave you and what is consistent with where your at now!.For me a teachers comment is "Paul is bursting to tell of his latest discovery" I still do!!!

How well people do has more to do with CHARACTER rather than INTELLIGENCE, is more apparent from my experience...at all age levels!!Think in terms of ATTITUDE and MOTIVATION!!

PL

I'll reiterate again that different does not equal "bad."

Assuming that everyone is the same, and fighting to get others to believe that everyone is exactly the same is NOT what equality is about.

There is no injustice if there is equality of opportunity. As long as that is upheld, I'm perfectly satisifed. If it is not, it is wrong and I will fight it to my last breath. There are areas where we can improve in actual equality but bickering over whether differences exist between us is not one of those areas.

I think our very strength as the species homo sapiens sapiens and our strength as a civilization is there not in spite of our differences, but because of them. If we only evolved to meet the challenges of the African savannah, we probably would have died out when a disaster hit there.

Instead we've evolved to meet the needs of every habitat on Earth and to solve the problems of various geographies, resource bases, and cultural structures and worldviews. Our differences are the very thing that allows us to overcome adversity, * because* a woman might approach a problem differently than a man, and people of different ethnicities might bring different skills to bear on the problem as well.

It is this fact that should govern the political correctness movement. That it so often fails to acknowledge this and instead persecutes people who realize that differences exist is the reason I am so vehemently against PC groups.

Also I'd note that you continue to fail to introduce evidence in support of your theory of upbringing reigning supreme.

I would suggest this as logical proof that there is no evidence.

__________________

Why do you keep saying that? It's irrelevant. There is no "good vs. bad" dimension to this discussion, you are just imagining that. The discussion is about what is in evidence, and what is lazy rationalization. That's it.

But asking for controlled evidence of differences, before we fall into self-fulfillling prophecies, is very much what equality is about-- and has historically been one of the few protections against great inequality, its absence leading to things like the slavery of the early 1800s.
But the fact that you are repeatedly ignoring is the extreme absence of fundamental innate differences between populations with very different backgrounds, across all aspects of the human species. That is by far the most important aspect of humanity to observe, and yes, it is one of the most compelling reasons for the requirements of equality.

I have never said that upbringing "reigns supreme" in the nature vs. nurture issue. There is no question that on an individual basis, genetics play a key role in controlling the potential aptitudes, as does upbringing. But when looking over full populations, what is so striking about humanity is the extreme absence of fundamental differences in innate properties like intelligence, math, and analytic skills. That's the real story here, and it also holds across gender, as the study in the OP finally helps to set the record straight on. What signal remains is small and controversial (I've seen two or three different versions of what that signal even is on this very thread, and the OP was perfectly clear there was no difference in either the average or the top-end)-- and is easily attributed to the obvious societal differences anyone living in the culture is aware of.

But the good news is, the societal pressures women must overcome seem to be weakening. Thus, it is obvious to me that their mathematical accomplishment will begin to equalize. Indeed, those pressures have weakened a huge amount from 100 years ago. Wanna take bets, anyone who thinks the difference is genetic, on whether or not women's scores on math aptitude tests have gone up or stayed steady, relative to men, during those cultureal changes over the last 100 years? I'm sorry folks, this is a no-brainer.

as far as I am concerned HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT EQUAL AND WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME!!

Everybody has their own level of understanding!

not everyone is +ve, not everyone is open minded,I could go on forever.Some people are good (such as myself!) and some people are scum and don't give a **** about anything...they usually stay in jail..4 ever!

I spent time with the police as a volunteer and I asked a cop what do these criminals have in common? and he said "they don't stop to think about it" they arent stupid,.. THEY SIMPLY HAVE THE WRONG ATTITUDE!

I can't stand political correctness

so how can we be the same??...USE YOUR EXPERIENCE!!!

as far as I'm concerned life becomes less B & W as one gets older...so naturally I have a problem with "scientist" and religious fundamentalist!

the only scientific reality is not measured in controlled conditions it's what happens in life...the constant variable is ATTITUDE & EXPERIENCE!...as you think so YOU ARE!

take care

PL

BS. You've just said it again in the very same post in which you claim you are not:

You've repeatedly denied that there are innate differences. But you've repeatedly affirmed that there are noticeable, testable differences. What else is anyone to conclude but that you are * directly * advocating nurture as the only cause for gender differences?

The fact that there are differences, and that that is a * good * thing, is a no-brainer. The fact that you are too stubborn to accept it is unfortunately a prevalent trait for PC adherents.

It has weakened support for the movement enough so as to be laughable.

It's entirely relevant, as it is the source of your bias. You have been brainwashed to believe that different = bad, so you attack any suggestion of difference.

Some of us live in reality here, and you attack anyone who will not agree to denying that the real world exists.

For that reason, and your continued refusal to provide evidence, I'd have to say this conversation has become a completely redundant waste of time.

__________________

Actually, I didn't, but apparently my argument was too nuanced for you. I'll try again: when looking at individuals, genetic variations are very important, as are upbringing and cultural influences. But a funny thing happens when you look at a large population, which is that the genetic variances that are so important for individuals get averaged out, thereby mitigating their impact on the population as a whole, whereas the cultural influences do not, because the population as a whole is subject to those same influences.
Again you would do better to look at my actual words. I have never denied the existence of innate differences (for one thing, I am aware that women have a different physique). What I have actually done, over and over, is point out that the claim that there are innate differences in mathematical ability requires support from controlled data that is simply lacking. Furthermore, I have pointed out that the study in the OP shows how the gap between men and women in math skills is shrinking to the point of vanishing due to perfectly obvious changes in our culture over the last 50 years or so. I'm still waiting for someone who thinks there are genetic differences in math ability to speculate on trends that they do or not expect to find in women's math scores over the duration of those changes in our culture, but I guess I'll just have to wait on that one, won't I?I've often noticed when people's failures to sustain a logical position is pointed out to them, they become frustrated and annoyed. Perhaps my debating style never had any chance of "converting" you, but there is still hope for more neutral readers of the thread. Your last post makes me wonder if you really understood anything I said, so I can imagine that might seem like a waste of time to you. I happen to think that whether or not our women should expect to achieve equally to our men in the areas of mathematics and analytic thinking is hardly a waste of time to establish.

My annoyance is mostly directed at myself for wanting to try to "win" a debate when its been clear almost from the start that you have a bias. Talking about an issue such as this with anyone who thinks the outrageous injustices the PC movement creates are OK is like arguing over the best kool-aid flavor with a cult member.

As far as more neutral parties, the ones that have surfaced have been by and large in support of the nurture argument. I was happy to find that there are some people who still live in reality, and do not have to believe that everything is a matter of social norms, but that people are much more likely to be the outcome of both genetics *and* upbringing.

And you have yourself admitted that your basic argument has been disproven:

I understood everything that you said - which is why I don't feel the need to hear any more of it. I don't think I can bear to read any more "pot calling kettle black" arguments whereupon the man who has presented only rhetoric without a shred of evidence accuses everyone else of preposing a theory with "no evidence behind it," when we've actually taken the time to show ours.

What's the expression in the math classroom.... "Show your work."

__________________