Precisely.

__________________

Not solely that? I could see that statement as a tiny bit of progress, except for the simple fact that this thead isn't even remotely related to that. It's a complete non sequitur, and has been the entire time, as I've oft repeated-- you completely imagine that dimension, it is all your own projection here. All I have ever said is that the burden to produce evidence is on the person who asserts there is an innate difference, and for obvious reasons. The only argument in this thread that has met the burden of evidence is the opposite argument-- it did not even incur the burden of evidence, yet met that burden anyway! And still you think this thread has something to do with political correctness? What a chip, you're looking in the mirror here.

This is apparently a claim that the data in this thread does not make a convincing case. Actually, it does, and as evidence I cite the fact that all the data that is environment-controlled gives the clear conclusion, as interpreted by the experts involved (no, not just me), that there is no innate signal in this data. I add to that the further evidence that you have presented not one single argument, not one, based on controlled data of the contrary claim that there is an innate difference in math skills (I keep having to specify that last bit or else you fly off on a tangent about how there are innate differences between women and men, but of course everyone, and I do mean everyone, knows that). And that is true, despite the logical place to put the burden of evidence.

Not one of those examples has a particle to do with this thread, which is what I keep trying to tell you.

People, what is happening in this thread, and this is the simple truth, is that all kinds of scientific environmentally controlled evidence has been presented, from the OP and right on through, from at least five separate sources of controlled data, that there simply is no innate differences in overall mathematical aptitude that stems from the presence or absence of a y chromosome in someone's genetic makeup. Really, it has, the evidence is completely clear, simply review the thread. However, for some reason, the fact that this clear conclusion emerges in a way that the "politically correct movement" would like it to, somehow is supposed to imply that the conclusion itself stems from that movement. That simply is not logic, what more can I say.

That you, personally, someone who is not at all moderate and is entirely a political correctness advocate, choose to throw out all evidence that contradicts your desired conclusion of 0 difference is entirely relevant.

I am not suggesting that "the political correctness movement" has cooked the books.

I am directly stating that you, Ken G, are biased, and as such you have dismissed all evidence presented that contradicts your wish for genetic equivalence.

What's more, you work with a double standard - you accuse those who see genetic difference of introducing evidence that is not valid based on the methodology involved, yet attempt to use anecdotal evidence to support your own theory.

There is evidence that points to there being no difference.

But there is also evidence that points to there being significant genetic difference.

Your claiming that this thread overwhelmingly shows 0 genetic difference is simply false. Your wishful thinking will not make it so.

AT BEST the conclusion we'd have to draw here is that either the jury is still out, or, that ultimately it may be a little from Column A, a little from Column B.

IE, there are differences, but they are not as enormous as previously thought and easily surmountable with good education and encouragement. This applies to BOTH SEXES - meaning men can close the language, communication, and interpersonal relationships gap, and vice versa for the areas we have discussed (ad nauseum) for women.

__________________

All I can do is repeat, once again, that I have "thrown out" not one single shred of evidence in this thread. Not one. All I have done, quite correctly, is to point out the difference between evidence that is controlled for environmental factors, and evidence that is not, and I distinguished evidence that relates directly to math aptitude from a sea of non sequiturs about political correctness. This is all I need to do to put your "evidence" into its proper place. Indeed, one needs only review the thread to see that every example of the "evidence" you now refer to (as it related to math aptitude, not all the non sequiturs) was shown up to be completely uncontrolled for environmental factors. Yes, it was.

Then what argument can you possibly be presenting here, because "the books" are clear enough on this issue.
Argument by assertion. Show me the evidence you claim I "threw out", and then tell me it is controlled evidence that speaks to innate math ability and not environmental factors. I'm waiting, as I have been for this entire thread.
I already dispensed with that "anecdotal" charge, in the context of the research data of Eric Mazur. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Oh really? Controlled for environment? Relating to math aptitude (not all the non sequiturs brought in by the "chip on their shoulder anti-politically-correct" posters)? Why haven't you entered any such evidence into the actual thread? I watched for it-- not there.
Two logical fallacies: 1) argument purely by assertion, 2) claims that what I wish substitutes for what I actually gave, which was a logical argument based on actual evidence from multiple independent sources and controlled for environmental factors. And truthfully, you haven't the vaguest idea what I "wish"-- I just wish people could get past the chips on their shoulders and stick to real logic as the right way to get to the truth.
Not if it is logic that we are to use to reach such a conclusion.
And you think you even know the sign of the innate difference? Based on what controlled evidence-- that imagined evidence you keep referring to but cannot actually cite?

Um, as to this:

I must have missed the study that showed that. There were two main studies discussed in this thread, I believe: the OP (showing girls and boys in the US have no significant difference in math scores at all grade levels based on standardized tests) and one I linked to (showing that in countries with more gender equality, the difference between boys and girls math scores from PIMMS reaches parity). This was a long thread: perhaps you could link again to a study showing a significant gender difference in math scores? All I've seen is a bunch of anecdotes and lots of complaining about "political correctness," whatever that means.

__________________
"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 recently heard of a hypothesis that implied men are neither better nor worse at anything, just more extreme
(maybe somebody remembers the authors and details)

They summed it up roughly like this:
"More business leaders, top politicians, Nobel prizes, etc
- but also more high-school drop-outs, criminals, psychopaths, etc."

That came up in the thread also, in regard to math aptitude, but it was not controlled for environment and did not repeat in experiments that were so controlled (see, e.g., the OP: "For example, they compared the variability in boys' and girls' math scores, the idea being that if more boys fell into the top scoring percentiles than girls, the variance in their scores would be greater. Again, the effort uncovered little difference, as did a comparison of how well boys and girls did on questions requiring complex problem solving."). I think it's pretty easy to see how environments contribute to extreme behavior, either extreme achievement or extreme absence of achievement, and even this data is not controlled for environment but fortunately the environmental effects seem to be minimal at the younger ages. As minds mature and reach the career stage, note that some cultures have essentially no women that contribute in certain areas like mathematics and physics, while others have women make extremely important contributions. I expect that as the culture reaches equality, equality in achievement at career stages follows too, but there are so few that have achieved equality that it's hard to find good data other than seeing the trend.

Sorry to resurrect a thread, but today on BBC Radio4's "Woman's Hour" programme, Marcus de Sautoy, the new Simonyi Professor for the public understanding of science, succeeding Dawkins, was talking about women in maths. You can hear him at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00f303f

The most surprising thing for me was that a country like Spain, that I would have stereotyped as machsimo ridden, has an almost equal number of female and male maths professors! Surely that's good evidence for a lack of sexual difference?

JOhn

They also have a female secretary of defense,
who was in advanced pregnancy when nominated...

Wow. I'm relieved to hear such liberated thinking is actually possible. Of course, some who posted to this thread will apparently conclude this must mean Spain is under the thumb of an advanced "politically correct" movement, rather than arriving at the blatantly obvious conclusion that they have simply done a better job of utilizing their full human potential.

Oh for god's sake. we've already beaten this issue to death in at least two threads that I know if, one of which was unintentionally started by TRS. This supposed hard-wired difference in math ability between the sexes has been debunked in many ways a dozen times over in many different arenas and is analogous to the nonsense promulgated in 'The Bell Curve' in that it is both pseudoscientific and highly offensive.

My thanks to the gallant Ken G for his defense of my gender against this sexist hogwash.

On that note, I move that this thread be closed and similar threads be discouraged in future.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

I love the image, it really shatters the common stereotype, doesn't it?
(remember, she's the boss, not the guy next to her...

Amazing shot, if it appeared in The Onion one would think it was a joke.

What's wrong with those three guys in the dark uniforms?

__________________
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

Middle one looks like he's just been stabbed.

__________________
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

wait, why is the hypothesis that sexual dimorphism, which extends to the brain and is visible in MRI scans, might express itself - why is that "highly offensive?" Without touching on the validity of the claim, why would be offended by the discussion?

Same question here. Regardless of whether it's true or not, why would you automatically assume that someone who asks a question is sexist? Are you offended if someone claims that men tend to be taller than women? Are you offended if someone points out that men have greater tendency toward violence? If I point out that women tend to have better language processing skills, does that make me a sexist. No, of course not. Any time I compliment the female gender, or bash the male gender, you're ok with that. But if I dare to suggest that maybe there might be one tiny little thing that's good about men, you're offended and you call me sexist. I find that troubling.

This commentary deserves support. It's true about a great many issues at that.

It's a tough thing that we all need to watch out for. How often is it that when someone criticizes a certain issue, we suddenly assume that they must, therefore, support a different issue?

I know I have caught myself doing this too.

That's the societal norm, unfortunately. It's called misandry.

Your mistake is thinking that the issue is whether or not the claim is flattering. The real issue is, whether or not the claim is supported by unbiased evidence. If you claim women have innately better language skills in a society that is female dominated, you would indeed be sexist, if you cannot support the claim.
Hang on, a moment ago you claimed to be merely posing a question, but now you are admitting that you "suggested" something. To that we say, yes, we know fully well that you were suggesting something. All we were pointing out was your absence of supporting argumentation, and how fully the evidence that was mentioned in this thread demonstrates the answer to your question. It's asked and answered, why would you not simply face that at this juncture? You see, if sexism and ignorance were not rampant, then there would probably be no cause for offense, as you say. But they are, and far moreso than the dreaded "political correctness".

Drop your patronizing tone. "My mistake?" I posted a message. Disagree with it if you like. Don't presume it to be a mistake without at least presenting some sort of counter argument.

I'll repeat my concern: Paracelsus labels one side of a debate sexist whether that side is right or wrong. Imagine two statements, A and B. Which one is sexist? To answer that, according to the model that Paracelsus appears to be using, you do not need to know which of those statments is true. It is enough to know that statement A is morally disagreeable. On that alone, we know to call anyone who even wants to discuss A a sexist. And anyone who disagrees with statement A is "defending my gender against sexist hogwash."



This is an unacceptable situation. Everyone should be free to discuss something without fear of ad hominem attacks. If I want to discuss intelligent design, don't call me an atheist heathen - don't call me a religious nut. If I want to discuss the apollo hoax, don't call me an america hater - don't call me a government disinformation agent. And if I want to discuss gender differences, don't call me a sexist.


You say that now, but in the very next sentence you contradict yourself:

So it's not about truth, it's about the environment in which the statement is made. You have a set of moral values. You believe that our society is male dominated and anyone who holds a position that you are morally opposed to is a sexist. Of course they can't support their claims, Ken! Their claims are wrong! They must be sexist. That explains it all!

Do you not see how this line of thinking is exactly what you'll run into if you go to a religious message board and make statements about evolution?



That's not going to fly, Ken. You have to be a dispassionate advocate for the truth regardless of your closely held moral values. We have to be free to discuss gender issues without fear of ad hominem labels.


yeah. See, this statement, like your little "my mistake" statement above, shows that you aren't willing to have a rational discussion. You're just playing games. Please don't waste my time.

I'd be happy to post examples of rampant sexism against males. There's a lot of hate in the world. You can't use that as an excuse for your ad hominem labels, any more than the existence of corruption in Nixon's administration can be used as an excuse for calling Jay Utah a government shill. It just doesn't work.

All that you have the right to say is that people who disagree with you are wrong. You are not allowed to get on your moral high horse and also say, "not only are you wrong but you are morally bankrupt and sexist - I am fundamentally better than you because of my enlightened views." What I'm trying to explain to you Ken, is that when you do that, you chill the conversation and lower the level of discourse. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech, even for thoughts and speech that are wrong.

It is a mistake, and I said exactly why. If you think being told the truth is "patronizing", you won't learn much.
That would be a logical remark, were it not in complete opposition to all the factual information presented in this rather long thread. Are you choosing to simply ignore the thread? Will that be your position here, that on page 23 of this thread, wherein much data has been presented to utterly refute your "suggestion", it is still simply a "statement" to make a claim that is completely unsupported by anything? No, you're right, you are being victimized, this is nothing but a sincere question that you have, and the thread is just too long to read. So forget all that victimization, I shall simply summarize the thread for you:
1) Plenty of evidence exists, and is cited, that as environmental conditions equalize, women show equal math aptitude as men. Read the thread.
2) Evidence does exist that there are innate physiological differences between men and women. Most people are actually aware of this. No relevance to the issue of the thread could ever be established by a single post in 23 pages.
3) Conclusions that are in agreement with a "politically correct" attitude are not automatically false, nor are they automatically a result of political correctness-- when scientific evidence says something is true, it is still true if it seems politically correct.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you, it is indeed a long thread. If you think my summary is the least bit inaccurate, you are welcome to read the thread and point out where you think it says something else.


Of course, those are the rules of the forum. The relevance of your remark is....? You must be talking about something other than this thread, somewhere that ad hominem attacks against you have been levelled. I'm sorry you seem to experience that often elsewhere, but it has not happened here.Do you mean that you do not understand the definition of sexism? Yes, it's about the environment. Perhaps that would be a good place for you to start your understanding of it.

With regard to item 1, my personal experience is that, with regard to research mathematics:
a. Most men are not very good
b. Most women are not very good either
c. Most research mathematicians are men (a vast majority)
d. Women research mathematicians are quite competent and capable of competing with their colleagues.

There are a number of women who have made solid research contributions in mathematics. http://www.agnesscott.edu/Lriddle/women/alpha.htm

The argument as to whether there is a gender bias in mathematical ability is rather silly. It is silly for several reasons.

a. What passes for an assessment of mathematical ability is not overly relevant to real mathematics but rather to arithmetic and computing ability.
b. The general mathematical capability of the populace is dismal, and both the average man and average woman are pretty pathetic in their ability to handle any but the most mundane mathematics. If you restrict the attention to only that portion of the population with some significant mathematical capability you are already dealing with a very small fraction indeed, and dividing that small slice by gender is of marginal utility. It would be of greater interest to address the question of why most of the population can't compute the area of a rectangle or count their fingers.
c. Women are under-represented in technical areas, but the women who are in those areas, in my experience, are quite competent. This may simply be a result of a cultural bias that mitigates against their entering the area unless they have significant talent.
d. It doesn't matter if there is a genetic component or not, it matters whether the women and men in mathematical, scientific and engineering disciplines can do good work and produce good research. It would appear that professinals in these areas, at the highest levels, are very good indeed independent of X or Y chromosomes.

With regard to item 2, that point is not particularly relevant to mathematics, but is in general a far more interesting topic.



BTW this particular example of feminity holds one of the earliest patents for spread spectrum transmission techniques.

Your line seems to be well, yes, there may be a difference but it's silly to talk about it so please shut-up. I wonder if you appreciate that the next stage of KenG's co-ideologues after observing 1(c) is typically to demand that affirmative measures be taken to equalize the number of male and female mathematicians.

No. What I said is that it is a bit silly to talk about this purported difference because:

1. Neither the nature of the difference nor the basis for the assertion of a difference has been well defined. It is a bit silly to debate differences without defining those differences or providing a basis to determine if they exist.

2. At a high level of mathematical ability the women who engage in mathematics research are quite able to hold their own.

3. Measures of mathematical ability typically quoted in the popular press are at such a low level as to be meaningless for serious scientists, engineers and mathematicians.

I am not aware of any serious charges of discrimination in the workplace against female mathematicians. My experience is that mathematicians are generally evaluated on the basis of their research and not on the basis of their plumbing.

If there is a difference, and I am not inclined to believe that there is a significant difference, then it is not manifested within the mathematics community. I have not seen it in the wider technical community either. Women mathematicians with whom I have been associated have been quite competent. Women engineers with whom I have been associated have also been the equal of men (in many cases they were a bit better).

This thread has thus far been focused on reality and not on political implications. It would be a shame to change that. Affirmative action would not be a good topic for a science forum.

You don't have to worry about what I understand. I have quite a bit of experience in the big wide world.

I've previously linked to AWIS's statistics page. Although cases of overt discrimination (against female scientists in general, not just mathematicians) have been decreasing over time, more subtle forms of discrimination (funding, research support, evaluation baises, etc.) continue to occur and are well documented.

__________________
"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

Mathematics is a fairly unlikely target for such demands because it is obscure, not high status or highly remunerated, and most feminists don't find it attractive.

More "shutup" eh?

You don't think the Association for Women in Science might be a little one-eyed?

So summing up this debate after umpteen pages, each side thinks the other side has a biased view on the research. Is another umpteen pages going to change anyone's opinion?

__________________
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

One might think that mathematics would an appropriate field to consider given that the topic of the thread involves ability in mathematics and not feminists.

Since when was mathematics not high status? Newton? Gauss? Archimedes ? Riemann ?
If mathematics is of little regard, then why worry about ability or discrimination ?



I don't recall saying that, but in your case it might be a good idea. Is your issue feminism or simply beligerance? Do you just want to fight? How about pistols at 20 paces?

That would actually be a rather poor summary of the situation-- because anyone who cares to review the thread will find that there simply is no environmentally controlled research period that suggests women have less innate math aptitude than men (even if we are talking about a rudimentary level of that aptitude relative to a professional career). This is the real problem here-- we do not have two sides claiming the other side is biased, we have one side citing evidence and the other side grousing about political correctness or accusations of sexism, and mystery references to ad hominem attacks, in lieu of a shred of valid evidence whatsoever involving a differential in innate math abilities. It reminds me of a debate about evolution, or UFOs, where one side cites scientific evidence, and the other simply complains that science is some kind of biased conspiracy.