The expectations put upon them have changed drastically. Have you performed my thought exercise?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Which neither alters behavior nor aptitude.
Today, a lot of the chauvanism has been lifted that once existed.
An example of another kind was womens suffrage.

But that doesn't justify the bandwagon. We were laughing in another thread about the guy in Dallas feeling offended about "Black Hole" being used as a description.

Yes, couldn't name very many men besides Einstein, either.
Funny that, huh?

and in your next post, you say girls have changed tremendously over the generations....


well, I did take one education class in college, where I learned traditionally, there has been a difference in how girls and boys score on various math tests. The article you quote says a recent study shows that's not the case anymore. So clearly something has changed. You could argue the reasons (girls not encouraged in math in the past, etc.) but not the result.

Incidentally--I've also seen studies that boys have a higher standard deviation than girls on math performance--there are more boys stellar at math, and more boys completely clueless about math. That was my experience when I taught calculus.

Also, it's not my high school experience: exactly two people in my graduating class became math majors in college: myself a boy, and a girl.

__________________
-----
Todd (Bowie, MD, US, North America, Earth, Sol System, Vega region, Local Bubble, Orion arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo A Cluster, Virgo supercluster, the universe in which spock is clean shaven)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

personal page: http://blog.astrosketches.info

Thank you. The aim of my questions was to understand better where you were coming from. What you were taught in your education classes sounds quite plausible.

With respect to the suggestion that the levelling may be due to a dumbing down of education, I draw your attention to the following in the Science Daily article:

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

Are you sure it doesn't alter behaviour?

How Dads Influence Their Daughters' Interest In Math
Implicit Stereotypes And Gender Identification May Affect Female Math Performance

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

I find it much more likely that peers and mothers will influence the girls to not study math.

Are you implying that if you had a better recollection, the list of names of the greatest scientists and mathematicians would include as many women as men?

Nev,

At the local "barbershop" gathering of knuckleheads I grew up with (read people I smile at and say hello to by virtue of seeing them over four decades, but wouldn't invite into my house under normal circumstance) with that reply was used to answer the question why X percentage of young black men were in prison. Though the actual reply was, "Yeah, why is that?" A simple phrase that turned it back around on the speaker. Lead to an interesting discourse. It got loud but not troublesome. I wasn't the only widebody present to see stuff didn't get stupid.

Miss Gillian,

I think I finally have enough material for a "Miss Gillian" thread. I wasn't avoiding you, I was avoiding them. Them being the Council of Aging Hippys, (Chapt One, San Francisco) as I find you can get stoned just trying to follow their train of thought, which often never even leaves the station. Circular reasoning would be refreshing, do they have a thing called spirographic reasoning?

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Nope.
And let me make myself very clear here.

I am well aware- that in history, all manner of peoples have been persecuted- over the silliest of reasons.

But today is today.

Folks can't just jump on the bandwagon whenever they see something they THINK is discriminatory and declare it is- when it may not be. Because that, then, persecutes innocent people.

Men are just as persecuted as women- in different ways.
There are just as many female chauvanists too...

Gillianren, I am sure you have read, "The Egyptian"?
That's a classic example.

But I don't jump up and scream everytime a woman comments on the nice shoes her husband bought her.

The time of change was before our lifetimes. VERY few on this forum is old enough to remember....
And no one is old enough to remember a thousand years ago, when we had the same conflicts, resolutions and persecutions- and those who fight against it.

You know me well enough by now to know that I'm all for the fight.

But pick the battle wisely.


Teenage girls have changed little over time- Sure- cultural influences have varied, society status quo- and yet, anyone reading... even absurdities like the satire of Voltaire... is looking at an eyewitness account of our ancestors....
Like Walt Kelly's Pogo said: "We have met the enemy and they is us."

Tests with young children show that boys have a slight advantage over girls in maths. The difference is one to two percent. It's not much. It has been suggested that this difference is genetic. Currently in real life, girls tend to do as well or better than boys in math. This was not the case in the past. This does not mean there is no genetic difference between girls and boys, but the very small genetic difference is easily swamped by other factors. Because girls have less behavioural problems than boys one might expect them to preform better than boys as a result. On the other hand, girls have much higher rates of depression than boys so one might think the opposite. Anyway, upon hearing that girls have apparently improved in maths, my response is yay! If girls have improved then that's a good thing. And all else being equal, having more people around who are good at maths is good for society.

In that case wouldn't their average performance have been higher than the boys'? That doesn't square with the claims the OP referred to.

I don't know where or when you went to high school, but when I went to high school (Australia, 80s) the program to equalize math and science outcomes was already in operation. I was the best at maths in my year level, but my marks were no better than those of the top girls. They always curried favor with teacher and always gave the expected answer. I'd lose marks for doing things like saying "-3" when asked for the square root of 9.

One interesting thing I did notice in my high school, in which the girls on average were outperforming the boys by many standards (though both were performing excellently), was that many of the girls I had noticed as some of the smartest and best in the class were trying to go into medical fields and pure sciences, while the boys in similar positions were more likely to go into engineering.

I don't have any clue why, but it did seem to be a fairly consistent trend (obviously with some exceptions)

__________________
WANTED:

Schroedinger's Cat

Dead And Alive

Are you serious? Do you really not see how differing standards create differing behaviours?

And a lot still exists.

So you're saying that's the same as acknowledging that women didn't have the same opportunities and expectations to do well in math? I don't get your argument. You're saying that the influences we're describing--that some of us experienced (and, yeah, I had math teachers who expected the girls to be bad and answered more of the boys' questions)--didn't happen? How very odd.

Yes. That's the word.

Okay, fine--try the experiment while looking it up. Go to Wikipedia or somewhere and look for a list of famous male scientists versus a list of famous female scientists. Get back to me.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

It does to some degree by manner of influence. However, basic human behavior remains the same. The same as it has been for a very, very long time.

I'm surprised at you Gillianren, for having argued against my having said otherwise, shown me to research it... I corrected what I percieved to be an error in my judgement... and now you have done a total 360 on me.

Much less than what used to. That doesn't make it ok- and those that do it need to be confronted.
But jumping on bandwagons and accusing people not doing it- is just as bad as being one of the people that practices bigotry.
No. I never ever ever ever ever ever ever once claimed it never or did not happen.

It truly amazes me also, Gillianren, how you can read my posts and somehow- completely miss much of what I say, and instead, assign what you think or believe I am saying.

Pay attention to my words now:
Yes, it happens. But accusing those who do not do it is just as bad as being one who does.

Do you think ALL math teachers discourage female students? How insulting to teachers everywhere.

I have repeatedly pointed out that I'm well aware that there are bigots, persecutors and the like in the world.
Repeatedly pointed out that I think that deserves and warrants correction.

Whenever you and I argue a point- I repeat myself an Awful lot- and tolerate a lot of accusations that are in direct contradiction with what I actually said in previous post.
Please take the time to read what I actually post, and have the courtesy to analyze it.
If you have an argument- Good- but at least ensure it is based on what I actually said.

Actually, I don't need to get back to you, as my previous post to this one covered this issue as well as your earlier accusation.

This thread had me flashing on Heinlein's Starship Troopers, where spaceship pilots are female, "because they are naturally better at math"

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

That was pretty much my reaction to that What you said, though, was that it doesn't.

But what I'm really surprised at, was you couldn't come up with two examples, Einstein and Madame Curie, just to press the point

So what is Neverfly saying? I was going to sum it up, but I realized I can't.

I'm not quite sure, but to me it sounds like Neverfly's position is that Gillianren is wrong

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

For one thing, I wondered if this was a case of advocacy research. It's not that I have a problem with the idea of women and men being equally good at math. The area of gender studies has a long history of advocacy research.

I thought the article's hypothesized eplanation for the difference in SAT scores sounded a bit contrived.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

I thought it was because they had quicker reflexes and better fine motor control.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

No, actually, it hasn't. I can cite you literally hundreds of examples, most of which you should be able to think of yourself.

180. A 360 would put me in the same position, which is where I am.

And I'm not saying it necessarily happens to the same extent now; I don't believe it does. However, to acknowledge it did happen is not the same as saying it always will and we need to take drastic, unreasonable action against it, or whatever it is you're saying I think.

It sounds, and I doubt it's just to me, as though you did. You scoff at the experiences of, for example, someone who used to be a teenage girl, telling me what they behave like. Telling me that they don't bow to the expectations presented to them. Telling me, according to what I read, that girls wouldn't be influenced by their teachers or by society's view of how they behave.

You might want to consider why that happens.

And where, exactly, do I do that? I'm saying that there has been, if not necessarily is, a trend, and that you deny it frankly boggles the mind and indicates to me that you don't know much history.

It would be, if I'd said it. However, it is undeniable by anyone who knows what they're talking about that it does happen, and that it used to happen quite a lot.

But you also said that you don't think it was ever a problem that math and science teachers convinced girls that they shouldn't be/weren't bad at math. There were exceptions; there were always exceptions. I have never said there weren't. What I have said, repeatedly, is that the general trend of society taught girls that they weren't good at math and science because they were girls. You might want to consider reading a good biography of any of the female scientists I've mentioned. All of those biographies will tell you about the discrimination those women faced when they tried to accomplish anything in the field. A lot of graduate programs wouldn't even accept women. (Of course, Lise Meitner, being Jewish in Austria in the '30s, had bigger problems!)

I do read what you post. You express yourself badly, or else you simply don't realize what you're saying when you say it. You said, in as many words, that society doesn't influence behaviour, which is absolutely ridiculous. You say many things that don't make sense, and when you are told that you said them, you say you didn't, even when specific examples can be shown to you.

No, actually, it doesn't. Further, if all you can think of is Einstein, you clearly haven't been on the board long enough to have heard discussion of, oh, Newton's laws of gravitation or Galileo or Darwin's theory of evolution.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

What is advocacy research?

Which difference? From what I understood, the article says there are no differences on average, overall...

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

I can cite you literally hundreds of examples of how humanity has changed very little over thousands of years too.
The common person today has better education. The common person today has access to libraries etc.
Yes, this makes a difference.

But basic human behavior has not changed very much at all.
LOL
Posting faster than I can think. I'm not sure how I did that
Ok, good...

My issue is that for many people, they see something ludicrous and they freak out over it. Even while ignoring how it happens just as much to the other side.
Example: Black boards are now called Chalk boards but a white board is still called a white board.
Over sensitivity to one trivial issue while ignoring that the same trivial issue applies to those you are opposing.
It happens with gender all the time too.

I understand your position, but you are one person out of 4 billion.
Some are, some are not.
Same with boys.
Is there really a difference?

Girls and boys also can be very rebellious and not give half a wit about what society tells them.
Thats the nature of individuality and human behavior.
Well, of course, I have.
It happens Mostly with you on any topic regarding Women, Social order or Medicinal applications.

Because you are very defensive on these particular topics.
Tell me exactly what I am denying has happened that boggles your mind and demonstrates that I don't know history, please.

Where you did that- well, there are many examples across the time I've posted on BAUT, but I'll give the one you gave in this thread; Talking Barbie.
It's just a stupid Doll.
Most every girl I ever knew did not care much about what Barbie thought. They played with the dolls, but they played their way. They invented Barbie's world, They determined how Barbie thought and behaved.
That is the nature of such toys.
When I was a kid, how I played with Speed Racer toys or whatever was slightly influenced by the T.V. show- But it was only based on that.
I determined their character and how they behaved.
Also, as I grew older, I payed less and less attention to what the cartoons say.
Tom and Jerry says that a shotgun blast to the face would leave me covered in black soot and my hair blown back. But I knew fully that was not the reality. I never pointed a shotgun at anyone.
In order to claim that people are so very easily influenced by a toy designer or whatever, you need to first claim that people are mindless automitons with no imagination of their own nor a will of their own.

For the forth time: I have done neither of those things.
Are you claiming that, aside from a few exceptions, all math teachers did this?
I never denied any of these.

But pointing out that these things have happened does not equate to claiming it still is in trivial details today, while ignoring how the same thing happens to boys.
Or gays.
Or white folk.
No, it's because people don't read what I actually say, they put words in my mouth and accuse me of saying things I did not say.
I repeat myself- even put it in bold- yet it still gets missed. So guess what? It's the readers problem by that point.
Wrong.
What I said was that society does not determine behavior.
I have said that it can influence behavior.
But society, culture etc- Do Not Determine Human Behavior.
India, the Philippines- both these cultures strongly stress Marriage and fidelity. India has arranged marriages even.
Yet, in spite of both of those societies influencing heavily against infidelity and divorce...
Both suffer from infidelity and separation of partners (Divorce not allowed).
They are just better at keeping it a secret, better at not letting their neighbors know.
They cheat just as much, have children out of wedlock, have children in their marriage by a secret partner outside- etc.
Basic Human Behavior Remains The Same.
Used to be this way in the United States too.
In fact, Gillianren, you argued in favor with what I am saying now- in that thread.

Uh huh. Ok.
So show me.

You might add Emmy Noether.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to jump into this one more time.

When I was in school, the expectation was that boys would grow up to be breadwinners. They took course that would help toward that end. Math and science and/or shop. Girls were expected to grow up to be mommies! They were expected, even pushed, to take home-ec, in spite of any aptitude or desire that they might have. This was slowly changing due to the after effects of WWII and "Rosie the Riveter" and her kin who had found out that women could do any job a man could do and weren't limited to mom or secretary. We still aren't there yet, but we're getting closer.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Not to mention that, after the war was over, women were supposed to go back into the home and let men have their jobs back. Look at some of the popular culture of the era--independent women were villains. It was the homemaker who was the "proper woman."

Neverfly, why is it that you never seem to notice when examples are given that refute what you're saying and then demand more examples? I told you--many graduate programs would not permit women to enter. They simply wouldn't accept them. Rosalind Franklin made a vital contribution toward our understanding of DNA, but her work was stolen, apparently with malice aforethought, by male colleagues. Some of why Barbara McClintock's work wasn't accepted was that she was a woman. These are women who made enormous advances in our understanding of genetics, but Franklin, for example, was not part of the group that got the Nobel Prize, a thing they could not have managed without her work.

You don't believe it. That doesn't make you right.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I have not. I agree with Kaptain K's statement.
I have never claimed that did not happen.
For the fifth time now.
I do believe it.
I have never denied any of this, Gillianren.

What I was referring to was the times since about the 60's on.
You were talking about talking Barbie and Society and whatnot.
I was saying that Human Behavior has not changed.

ETA:note to the Moderator - I kinda had to address this post.

Advocacy research starts with a conclusion, and supports research that confirms that conclusion. It has been known by various names over the years: Lysenkoism, confirmation bias and feminist science are just three.

This is the part that seems contrived:

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Really? Like pharmacy? It's a field dominated by women, and they earn more than most physicians of either sex.

I was dumbstruck too.

I have loaned-out most of my recent books on this subject. If you will present evidence supporting your claims, I will order new copies of the books supporting mine, or at least provide links to them.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Here is a clue -- women have more empathy, hence prefer to work with living things (e.g. medicine, biology), whereas men have more logical thought processes, hence prefer to work with things that give predictable responses (engineering, computers). It's no accident that Asperger's Syndrome is sometimes called "extreme male brain" [1].

I think the evidence for THIS difference being genetic is much more compelling than for difference (if any) of pure math ability.

[1] Which makes me wonder -- what would be "extreme female brain"?

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.