I refuse to continue doing your research for you. I've already read the material. If you wish to, feel free. I am not a masochist - I have no desire to waste time finding it again just so you can dismiss it offhand because it doesn't fit your own skewed standard for evidence.

Ah, so you know that genetics shapes personality but you are arguing the opposite anyway. Interesting.

You conveniently forget to mention the things I did indicate are controlled by environment. Scroll up, I don't feel like repeating them.

__________________

Read my post again. I didn't ask you to define aptitude, I asked you to measure it-- independent of environment. Wasn't it you who just finished saying "You can keep a person with high aptitude ignorant and we will not develop that potential"? So how do you know what their aptitude is, in that situation? (That's what I was asking. Perhaps you had some bizarre interpretation that seemed ridiculous.)
And that 10-year-old doesn't have an environment? Last I checked, environment started at birth (some say before, but I'm skeptical there). So, now, tell me how you are going to test the IQ of a newborn, I'm all ears.

No, actually, you did not explain why you thought genetics "played the larger role", you are significantly misquoting yourself. What you actually said, and which I quoted in my response, was "In the case of personality and aptitude environment has almost no contribution". Saying it had the "larger role" would have been much closer to reasonable, in the case of an individual (I already pointed out the difference when you average over populations).

You have IQ data on twins that were separated at birth and placed into highly different environments? Please cite it.

Actually we are just talking about "aptitude", those others are more non sequiturs. And I still await that data you refer to but never cite.

How so?
Why does one shoe fit but the other does not?

Because you don't want it to?

Ken G:

I think you're confused. You can't seem to separate "aptitude" - IE, talent, from test scores, IE a combination of education and talent.

That aptitude and IQ tests can *take into account* the education a person has received should hardly be stultifying for you.

__________________

I'm afraid I haven't the vaguest idea what you are asking. I have always been talking about math aptitude on this thread. What have you been talking about?

I notice how some people just dodge when they have no answer. Again, I ask you, how you can test the aptitude of a 10 year old in a way that is purely "innate" and can have no connection with the 10 years of environment that child has experienced. I'm still all ears.Could it possibly be that you are now arguing that those 10 years of environmental influences can be removed from the results of the aptitude test via "taking it into account"? You can't possibly be serious, really.

If you take a test tailored for a 10-year old's educational level and administer it in two areas:

1) A rich suburban area where a kid has every advantage
2) A poor urban area where many kids are disadvantaged

Gee, big surprise - the results will be lower for the kids in the urban area. So you balance the scores accordingly.

I think it is you who can't possibly be serious if you do not understand the concept of grading on a curve.

__________________

I am talking about what You said.
In other words, you seem to be cherry picking what is Genetic and what is not.

And that brings us back to the male role in ancient societies for the last few million years, but not the female one, being directly applied physics and geometry, and the link between that and math.

What would be the point of testing something that was NOT reasonable on the face of it? If you're already sure that it makes no sense to think that red & blue frogs secretly conspired to cause the conflict between Russia and Georgia, then there's no need to test it.

Um, if I am "cherry picking" the topic of the thread, then I can kind of see what you are saying.

Are you doing this deliberately?
Bold Mine:
Now that I have held your hand and walked you through it step by step- Please answer my question

What? Are you claiming there is a connection between male roles in society and the development of "applied physics and geometry", that is so clear, one does not even need to make an argument for it? I'm glad you are sparing us the details of the rationalization, but I hardly think you can take it as a given that most people on this thread think male survival is more closely connected to geometry aptitude than is female survival, over the last million years. That's actually the kind of question we invented scientific testing to address. That would be hard in this case, but the claim doesn't even sound plausible on the surface to me.

Bringing it back to math, does any one have any comments on the studies that I posted earlier (one I linked to again just above)? I think they are directly relevant to the current argument, have good methodology and large sample sizes, and seem to show that differences in mathematical "ability" between genders are strongly, if not completely dominated by culture. Isn't that what the original post was about?

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

It makes sense to conclude there's a reasonable justification of MANY factors.

Culture has nothing to do with I.Q.
Culture has nothing to do with Mental Retardation.
Etc.

However, when it comes to developing ability, even if someone has an I.Q. of 98 he can still be able to do the same math as someone who has an I.Q. of 180.
The latter will learn at a faster rate is all.

So yes, cultural influence can have an impact on how much education people recieve, how much application they have- but Not an impact on their physical characteristics- including the physical brain.

I just get a "Pay me" page when I try it, which is probably what others have gotten too. But from what you told us about it...

For various reasons, I have no faith in the their numerization of the nebulous and subjective concept of "gender equality". And since what you've described here of the findings boils down to "females are just plain smarter than males", I'm not sure whether to roll my eyes at that assertion being brought up by people who present themselves as defenders of fairness and the insistence that the sexes are essentially equal in all ways, or to feel encouraged that someone on that side finally at least mustered the honesty to admit that that's what they've really been sneakily saying all along (since they NEVER EVER object to the idea of males having any sort of inferiority in any way).

Actually, it does. That's rather the point. The mean IQ scores of the African American community over the past century, and the Irish and Polish during the earlier part of that century increased as those groups' standings improved (I don't have the citations for those at the moment). Does that mean those ethnic groups "got smarter," or does it mean that they got better at the things that the standard IQ tests measure? I'm banking on the latter.

Do you know of a method for measuring the "physical characteristics" that are relevant to mathematical ability that is free from cultural bias? There have been many attempts at creating such a "bias-free IQ" test, but I'm not aware of one that actually does what it claims to do.

And the point of the studies I linked was that the difference between girls' and boys' math scores (biased as they may be!) disappears in more equal cultures, and that it is nearly gone in the US as well (and other things I linked provided copious evidence that the playing field is not yet level, as some have claimed in this thread). How could that possibly show that girls have less inherent mathematical ability than boys? Or, if you are not claiming that, what exactly is the counter-claim?

Yes physiological differences exist between girls and boys, even in the brain. But are any of those differences actually reflected by differences in ability? Not only has no such evidence been provided, but the evidence seems to show that any such difference is effectively non-existent!

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

I agree that I.Q. tests are not always accurate.
If I did, I might get rich

I am not claiming that nor is there even a counter-claim.

What I referred to directly was that physical characteristics still exist.
Even intellect and ability can be heightened to a degree with development and training- but that is Still Limited by the physical peak.

Next, I am not one who thinks for even a moment that girls are less capable at math than boys.
My posts have reflected that.
However, I don't agree with jumping on bandwagons or distorting evidence either- which my posts also reflect.
I agree.

Funny thing is KenG seemed surprised when he learned I agree with that statement.

He couldn't seem to notice that what I argued with him about was his characterization of a stranger based on his bias. Which is Just as Wrong as claiming that girls are less able in math.

So - for the record- let's make sure that nothing I say gets distorted from this point.
It was very frustrating that last time and every time before that.

Your local university library--or even public library--should have a copy of Science. I'd post the PDF somewhere, but that'd be 'gain the law...

That's why they don't use a single measure:

The article itself has references for those gender equity studies. Do you care to give specific objections to them? In this case, it does not appear to be a particularly "nebulous and subjective concept."

They also checked whether the results were dependent on biological/genetic differences between countries and found no such dependence.

Odd that you say that, because neither myself, nor the article itself make any such claim. Your strawman (!) "angry feminist" aside, the article merely states that the gender gap in math vanishes and the gender gap in reading increases in countries with more gender equity. The article does not make the claim that this implies women are smarter than men. I also do not make that claim.

Nor have I ever claimed "that the sexes are essentially equal in all ways." Studies of athletic performance, of both mean and peak athletes, across several different sports, run counter to that claim. My claim, and the essential point of the article, is that there appears to be little-to-no inherently sex-based difference in mathematical ability. Do you dispute that particular point?

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Sorry, I still haven't the slightest idea what you are asking. Perhaps you did not understand that any entries in a list that are not relevant to math ability qualifies as a non sequitur in this discussion.

My apologies. As I said, I have not been following this entire long, sometimes circular, thread. I'm sorry I mistook your position, though I'm still somewhat unclear on what it is (see below).

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how that is relevant to the issue at hand regarding math (and, by extension, science). If there is no measurable difference in ability between two groups, any discussion of "physical characteristics" seems moot. What am I missing?

I hope I have not jumped on any bandwagons, nor distorted any evidence. If I have done so, I certainly hope that someone points it out to me!

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

So am I, and thank you for introducing a voice of reason. These are the things I've been trying to say for a dozen pages now, but didn't have the data-- I could only point to the absence of properly controlled evidence the other way. You will no doubt soon be as frustrated as I was, for every time you either ask for evidence of their claim, or present evidence to support your own, you will be accused of having a "hidden agenda". As if asking for, or in your case providing, evidence was anything but just that! Again, thanks for upping the level, I wish I had seen your post way back, it could have saved some time.

Ok.
I will consider this as a good job of "weaseling out" and just leave it at that then.

I can see how it could happen considering that I have a curious stance...
The physical characteristics has been a part of the entire conversation.
Although I agree that between the genders, labeling one or the other intellectually inferior seems like utter nonsense, there is also the matter of individual ability- which knows no gender.
Stereotypes come into play most, when others observe characteristics of an individual and then try to clump them in with a group and claim that entire group suffers those characteristics.

It's happened to me and others in this thread. If I say that DNA plays a role, suddenly I'm getting clumped into the "Women can't do math crowd" even though I do not agree with that crowds claim either.

Like it or not DNA IS EVERYTHING.
It plays a major role.
DNA even plays a major role in whether or not a person is capale of recognizing liabilities and overcoming them.
I do not see how one gender or the other has an advantage in this regard.
However, the DNA role should not just be dismissed simply for PC.
Whether male or female, brain function, DNA, chemical make up etc- WILL play a hand in how able that person is at any task.
Whether it's acuity, hand eye coordination etc.
Training and development can increase these things- but not by a phenomenal amount. It is still limited by that bodies potential.
I just don't think there is a differing limit for men and women.

The issue I am having in this thread is that I am seeing a lot of people trying to cast doubt or dismiss the clear evidence that is grounded in evolutionary biology and human ability.
Gender probably plays no real or substantial role in intellectual ability.
But many of the things discussed do play major roles and I don't like seeing them suddenly distorted and downplayed because someone fears that that evidence may cause harm to their argument.

I have not seen you do so

Are you kidding? You're picking a conclusion (difference in ability in math) and attempting to work your way back through a list of assumptions to justify it, and never mind actual research.

What is unreasonable about it? You're making an argument for differences due to neurological structure. So why wouldn't the same argument work for (for example) gender preferences for the color pink?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I was trying to be brief and generous. The problem is that I've heard things like it many times before, and the "conclusion" of people talking about international comparative gender equality is always the same: that the USA is a bunch of sexists who oppress women. Not only do I know it's false because I live here and see the real, actual behavior of people around me, but I also note that its role in discussions of any difference between women's lives and men's lives is always as half of a circular argument: the factoid in question is the proof that we just hate or fear women and are always trying to keep them down, and the fact that we do that is the proof that the factoid in question can't mean anything else. From what I can see so far, this looks likely to be another example of the same thing: the test scores prove the oppression, and the oppression proves the test scores. It makes "science" articles on the subject the equivalent of my recent experience of being yelled at for nothing by a woman whose car is covered in man-hating stickers.

If they did any better than usual this time, it would be quite surprising.

Each sex doing better than the other in one area and worse in the other area is a relatively balanced situation; both sexes being equal in one area while one excels by an even wider margin in the other area is simply one sex doing better overall. So yes, it does mean exactly that.

I might, depending on whether by "ability" you refer to what people could do within the limits imposed by people's genetics or other biological factors alone but might not ever choose to bother doing, or you refer to the level a person reaches through motivated practice, which then includes both biology and work. Practice is something you're not born with, but you could be born with the inclination/motivation/predisposition to practice some things and not others, and you're going to get better at the ones you do enjoy and spend time on than you will at the things you don't enjoy and spend time on. Taking social factors out of the consideration would narrow it down to innate ones, but that alone wouldn't distinguish between innate biologically-imposed limits and innate desire compelling one to push one's limits. What I've seen before establishes to my satisfaction that there is an innate difference here, but not the exact nature of it.

With the level of haughty bombast you've been using in tossing these insults and accusations off at every turn while characterizing a disagreement over interpretation of data as a matter of one side refusing to consider any, it's clear that your entire strategy consists of trying to drive people out of the thread and away from dealing with you, in order to declare victory in their absence.

Why are you pretending I've said it wouldn't? Gewd gawd, that's taking the whole "just making stuff up about me" theme here pretty far! With such a stark example of it as this, I don't even need to bother pointing it out in your previous paragraph of the same post.

Here was my question:

And your response was:

(emphasis added) You seem to be saying that the idea of gender preferences for color is not reasonable and, therefore, there is no point of testing it. Perhaps you meant something else?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I agree with the statement, but because of the grade fraud, not because of any partying with people who, the article clearly states, are all over the legal age for drinking.

__________________
‘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.

Obviously you mean me, but I'll just accept your confession that I was right all along when I pointed out that you were indeed posting to a different thread, a thread about the many obvious effects of genetics, whereas this is a thread about math ability (see the OP).

Oftentimes, when people go off topic, it can cause miscommunication when others make the relatively natural assumption that their talking points were intended to be on topic. I think that's exactly what happened here. But in case there was any doubt, I'm sure every single person on this thread is aware that genetics plays an important role for individuals, just as they are aware that genetic differences in regard to many types of innate abilities (not necessarily all) tend to average out in a large population (whereas cultural pressures do not, obviously).

As all of these statements are complete fact, it falls on any person making a claim that some particular innate ability difference exists to support that claim with hard evidence, controlled for the way the known impact of the environment can interfere with any diagnostic information that is not directly taken from the genes themselves (math aptitude tests, the topic of the thread, being an obvious example of this problem). I should have thought none of that would have been the least bit controversial, but that is the sole point I have been making that was being objected to repeatedly. If you thought I was ever saying anything else, replace that misinterpretation with this new information, just as I have replaced the misinterpretation that you were ever talking about math aptitude, as per your new information above.

We can agree on the grade fraud, and that drawing legally actionable conclusions about what happened on that boat would require a more complete investigation (which never occured, I think for obvious reasons-- Paxton certainly isn't calling for one). But what the article actually said was not that there was no underage drinking, it said Paxton claimed there was no underage drinking. That would seem to be a significant difference, given that Paxton also stated that the keg didn't work, and that he was taking the non-working keg away from that woman! If there was no underage drinking, why would he feel the need to insert such an obvious lie (can we not agree that these are lies-- just look at the photo).

Also, even if he happened to be telling the truth on the particular point of the age of those people, it should be pointed out that any student at his school could easily see themselves as peers of those people. Further, the photo could be viewed as condoning binge drinking-- no I don't see that as a stretch at all. Given how widespread that problem is in colleges today, any school official worth their salt would be sensitive about not participating in behaviors that could undercut their institution's efforts to curb binge drinking. And if his school has no such effort, well, that by itself is a good reason to can him. So that was part of the basis of my harsh assessment of his qualifications.