Actually, I was referring to several people. Otherwise, I would have said, "KenG." My posting history will reflect that I'm not very subtle.
What on Earth are you talking about now?

Ok, so... This big long stream of accusation, assumption and evading boils down to, "Sorry that I misunderstood you" ?
Ok. Apology accepted.

I'm glad we cleared that up. Now back to the topic-- is there anyone on this thread who still thinks, despite all evidence and logic to the contrary, that there is good reason to accept the thesis that women are innately less apt at math than are men? I feel we are moving toward consensus on this point, but I don't want to leave anyone out.

I am too I've never had anyone apologize by claiming I confessed they were right and then further blaming me for being unclear before.
It was definitely a new experience for me.

You must have missed the thread where epigenetics recently came up.

No, DNA is by no means everything. You are not your genes. The genome is just a template.

Furthermore (and this is for Drunk Vegan as well), some human characteristics are more genetic than others. Some are not genetic at all. You need to look at the numbers on a case by case basis, to figure it out. Trying to derive nature from theoretical first principles which you find self-evident but others beg to differ on can only lead you astray.

Nitpick: I believe that intrauterin conditions are considered environmental, too. Example (see Table 1, for a quick glance).

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

Glad to see you've dropped the "sexual harassment" accusation and gone with something that's actually constructed through logic.

[quote=Ken G]Let me say that I'd * like * to believe that there are no differences. But it is difficult to do so given what I know about the enormous influence of genetics, and the studies that have been done that have conclusively proven differences that go far beyond physical characteristics.

That you personally do not accept these studies as valid is not relevant to me.

I would submit, however, that the link describing rapid physical change in immigrants is encouraging. If the same does indeed hold true for aptitudes (I suspect the difference was due mostly to diet) then the gap could be closed, relatively fast.

__________________

I'd argue that some intrauterine conditions can be considered genetic.

For instance, hormones that are released as a part of the embryonic development process are natural. The development of differing physiologies and brain chemistry/structure based on chromosones are natural as well and therefore genetic.

The mother's dietary choices, level of physical activity, prenatal care and doctor visits, and whether she does drugs, smokes, or drinks, are examples of environmental factors that affect fetal development.

__________________

Not to mention that the "template" Disinfo Agent refers to is the foundation upon which the individual will react to environment.
It's why two people can grow up in the same environment, same treatment etc- and still be very different in their behavior and views.

As far as the BAUT thread linked to- It contains an article in German- Which I can't read... and a few posts. Nothing much discussed there and information that is pretty much inaccessible to the linguistically challenged such as myself.

I don't disagree, and certainly not in the case of nutrition, drugs, and whatnot-- I was just referring to more New-Age kinds of claims that learning begins in utero. You know, play music, recite languages, and so forth, to increase the intellectual development of the fetus. But your point is well taken, that genes are established at conception, and environment starts there, so that's a bit of a problem for those who think their data is not subject to environmental (cultural, economic, gender-based, etc.) pressures.

If you ever tire of misquoting me, you can review my actual posts, where you will find I never claimed that sexual harassment occured. I said more details would be needed to establish that. I also said, I suspected that dimension was likely relevant-- and I still suspect that, quite frankly. But I never claimed it-- that was your imagination.
You never cited any studies, so how am I to say more?
So I guess now even you will have to admit that the argument was not all "PC", was it?

Your continued suggestions of a lack of evidence from my side of the fence is puzzling considering you've never linked anything yourself.

Search the thread for "http" - you'll find plenty of examples of putting money where mouth is.

But none where you have done the same...

The argument itself, no. Your personal reason for espousing it, yes. It is entirely an emotional reaction based on a politically correct mindset.

__________________

Hang on now KenG, was it my imagination too?

Because we had exchanged several posts about that issue...

Look at 'em. Yes, it was your imagination too. (Of course, had I actually claimed that sexual harassment occured, I would certainly have used a more pointed descriptor for Paxton than a "clown".)

Oh realllyyy?!

Well, ok. I will do what you asked. And I will Look at your posts.
Here are a few examples of what YOU Said KenG.

Guess I need to check my imagination meter huh?
Or better yet... KenG, I suggest you try remembering your own claims rather than constantly and consistantly accusing others.

This is similar to your "Apology" to me a few posts back in which you apologized by claiming that I "confessed you were right" and claiming I misled you with misunderstandings and it was all my fault.

Which brings us to this little doozy right here:

Blatant obfuscation and imagination?

KenG you have amazed me during your participation in this thread.

I will be certain, from here on out, to try very hard to avoid debating topics with you.
These posts bear remarkable similarity to CT and HB mentality, in which your posts use clear accusation and insult and ad hom attacks whenever your argument fails.

Your mind boggling "Apology" by blaming me and claiming I confessed to something to which I made no such confessions demonstrated clearly that your posts seek to confuse and obfuscate- and once your posts have done that, the next posts supplies accusations that it was the other party imagining and obfuscated and even rationalized.

What a tactic! I am done with you.
I'm done with you KenG and although I will not be putting you on Ignore or anything, I will be certain to supply my respects and debate to those more worthy of my time.

Because whatever respect I had previously for your posts - is shattered.

Yes, you do, and then check the meaning of the word "if". I'm well aware of what I said, and I'm well aware that I did not claim that was sexual harassment, unless one of those women was a student at that school. That's what I said then, and now, as even your above quotes show quite clearly. I know you cannot get this, I'm saying it in case anyone else is reading this and was wondering about your accusations.
To clarify to anyone else reading why I would use those words, they describe Neverfly's description of a photo of a college president obviously pouring beer down a young woman's throat, by the words "a man sitting on a boat". Yes, I still see that as blatant obfuscation. The whole issue was whether "PC" is this pervasive evil force that is forcing us to overlook all kinds of evidence on gender differences in math aptitude-- evidence that this thread has shown simply does not exist.

Obfuscation?
By making the claim across a minimum of four posts - but by not saying it directly- you allowed yourself the escape hatch in case you couldn't prove it.
Problem is...
You didn't obfuscate this one very well:
Face it KenG- your tactic of allowing yourself an escape hatch met with miserable failure.
Seriously, what do you take me for? I'm not falling for it.

Escape hatch with a clarifyer...
And here's the part where your post blames me again.

Do you ever- ever at all?- accept responsibility for just being simply wrong?

You made the sexual harassment charge repeatedly.
Accusation of obfuscation that's unfounded at best- and I already covered it twice.

You're right about one thing. Not much need to continue. You have invented your facts and will repeatedly re-invent them as needed.

Time to close this thead, I'd say-- unless anyone has something to add?

http://www.bautforum.com/general-sci...ting-tips.html
This thread is very interesting

I wonder just how much more advanced are we than those flies?

Yes, perhaps we should give ourselves a pass for at least maintaining an interesting discussion, certainly by that standard!

Much of human behavior is demonstrability induced by predisposition more than active or willful choice.

Indeed-- many take actions out of predisposition that if they stepped back with a greater sense of perspective and priority, they might not. I can admit I am strongly predisposed against arguments I see as flawed or fallacious, but there is a thin line between that and something that is taken personally, which then brings in a whole new dimension of priority that an active or willful choice would not risk.

Glad you finally realized the futility of arguing with Ken G on this issue Neverfly.

As I said before:

Ken G has absolutely no ability to concede any point on these issues, though both you and I have been most accomodating in doing so ourselves. We happen to realize that admitting we were wrong about one detail does not mean we are wrong about every detail. Ken G can't seem to grasp that.

Nor will he even admit to what he himself has said which has been directly quoted.

If that's not the result of someone's brainwashing in danger of being threatened, and the conflict producing an irrational response in defense, I don't know what is.

__________________

Ken G addressed that a while back:

Nobody is denying that innate differences between individuals exist. That is obvious. But that's not enough to conclude that any and all observed differences between two groups must be innate.

There's also a link to a PBS documentary in one of the posts.

If it's 'demonstrably' so, then why are you and Drunk Vegan, and others, having so much trouble demonstrating it?

I tend to agree that this discussion is becoming sterile, but there is one more thing I would like to say. Throughout this thread, ample evidence has been provided that differences between boys and girls in math ability are primarily environmental, in the article cited in the OP and by Parejkoj. However, let's assume now, for the sake of the argument, that math ability really was mostly a matter of genetic predisposition, as Neverfly and Drunk Vegan and others have claimed, but never deigned themselves to prove with data. Then what?

It would change nothing. Even if math ability were 100% genetic, men and women still have a lot of common DNA. We're all human. How can they know that the part of the genome which is responsible for math ability is among those that differ between men and women, and not among the vastly larger amount of DNA that is the same for both? This, too, cannot be determined without collecting evidence.

As for the claim that men evolved to be naturally better at math because of their hunting activities, it doesn't even pass the laugh test. Yeah, like the typical hunter is a math geek! If you ask me, mathematics is equally unnatural for both genders, and we have the math scores every year to prove it.

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

Actually, I am aware of the basic logic behind that statement, just as I am aware of the disingenuity of referring to the entire topic of the OP as a "detail".
For the record, I'm well aware of what I said, and what I said about what I said, and there is no inconsistency there, as I'm sure any neutral reader can easily see from the very quoted material. I'm inclined to not even bother to defend myself of such a superfluous accusation, but it's hard not to.
Yes, your syllogism is correct-- you don't know what it is.

I find myself having to clarify myself again.
Disinfo Agent: Do you have the mathematical ability that Einstein had?
If you grew up in his exact environment or whatever- would you be his equal?
There are upper limits to everyone. Even Einstein had an upper limit to his ability.
Environment may allow folks to reach higher- or it may oppress people from living up to their potential.
But that doesn't blanket everyone either. Innate abilities still exist.

I completely agree with this statement. I do not agree with the claim that women are inferior at math than men are.

Disinfo Agent knows all this, as does everyone on the thread. Everything DA and I have said is about the OP.Like how it can cause women to not achieve their potential in math, as is the topic of the thread. This is all we are saying-- there does not actually seem to be a disagreement here.

It seems to vary actually.
From being ALL genetics to ALL environment.

The basic premise of DA and my argument is that the role of environment is well documented, whereas the role of genetics (if any), in the case of math aptitude correlations with gender, is not only undocumented, there is good evidence it is unimportant.

Has anyone here denied that?

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

I agree with this statement- mostly.

Honestly?
It's really hard to tell!

The discussions swings back and forth where it seems like it's all environment- and I don't find those statements scientific.

I would rather say that since the role of environment is unquantifiable all we can say with confidence is that environment IS a factor and that the effect of environment at the moment is strong enough to drown out any genetic difference.

__________________
‘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.