See what I mean? More grousing. At least they are actually a scientific organization, and as such point to actual evidence, whereas your evidence is...?

Just saw Danica McKellar's new book at the bookstore: Kiss My Math

There's very little intersection between your opinions and the truth, but we'll get back to that *after* I bring you (kicking and screaming, apparently) to an understanding of the concept of rational, adult discourse. Even if you have the truth on your side, calling someone who disagrees with you a sexist is an ad hominem argument. You have to respect the opinions of people that you disagree with. Many people learn that in grade school.

You're familiar with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law">Godwin's law</a> I'm sure? As the wiki article says, "there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress." Even if you have the truth on your side, if you are reduced to calling your opponent names, you automatically lose by default.

You believe there are no inherent gender differences in math performance. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But you also believe that your belief is the one righteous Truth and the unbelievers are morally inferior sexists. Because you think that way, anyone who actually discusses the issue with you is wasting their time.

I quite agree, which is why I have never done any such thing, and neither has anyone else on this thread. You see, a really important aspect of "rational, adult discourse" is to actually read what has been said. The only aspersions to character on this thread have come from you. (Telling someone that their arguments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the concept of sexism is not a correct understanding is not an aspersion to character, it is a statement of scientific fact.) Fortunately, a thread is a written record, so my facts can actually be checked.
You seem to think a science forum is based around expressing beliefs. No, it's not, it's based around discussing evidence. That is what I have done, and what you have not done. This is simply a fact-- when facts are mistaken for "beliefs", discourse takes on the character of a debate with a creationist or a UFOlogist, as this one has done.

Were there any credible evidence to back up a difference in mathematical ability between genders, such a discussion of the evidence would indeed be worthy of this forum and not offensive. However, such pseudoscientific claims have been thoroughly debunked, much as the claims of racial superiority in intelligence for whites versus blacks was debunked after the publication of 'The Bell Curve'. Further promulgation of this theory of gender difference in math ability therefore serves no constructive purpose and makes every woman who sees this thread feel bad, whether she bothers to slog through the evidence for and against or not. How would you feel if we started a thread entirely devoted to the 'evidence' (and I use that term advisedly) for females' superiority in reasoning and language abilities (or any other intellectual ability) over males?? Put yourself in my place for a second!!



You aren't simply 'asking the question'; you are defending a false claim of superiority of men over women in mathematics, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Why wouldn't I call that sexist??

Nope, I'm not, as these gender differences are based in fact. The facts are the facts. They may be cause to despair, for one reason or another, but bringing up uncomfortable facts does not constitute bias of any kind. Promulgating half-truths and untruths about gender differences does, however.

Not if it's true. If it isn't, and you insist it is, them you are indulging in reverse gender-bashing, which is both sad and strange.

The above quote is such a crock. Most of friends are male, as I find men easier to get along with than women. I'm happily married to a wonderful man, and I'd scratch the eyes out of anyone who'd denigrate his abilities because he's a man. I'm not misandist, nor am I a proponent of the theory that gender doesn't matter. It does, in many things.

But not in mathematical ability.

You know, tofu, I'd advise stopping this whole 'which gender is superior in what' line of thinking. You don't have to tear half the species down to bring yourself up.

__________________
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)

Darn tootin'!

BTW, as you are the resident mathematician, I need to ask you some questions about categorification and knot theory after reading very mushily-written article in New Scientist about this, so don't go anywhere!

__________________
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)

Paracelsus did, and I responded to her. And you (with your brain still full of dopamine after she called you the defender of her gender) decided to argue the point with me. But now you say that you didn't call people who disagree with you sexist? You want to back down? That's fine with me and wise of you.

As far as I'm concerned, if you or anyone else does it again, then that person officially loses the debate, even if the science is on their side. This is my corollary to Godwin's law. Anyone in this forum is free to believe whatever they want, and to argue whatever they want, and if that bothers you so much that you become emotional and revert to calling them sexist, then you lose.

Um yeah, the study that is the subject of this thread found a difference in mathematical ability.

Superiority? See, here's your problem Paracelsus. You take this discussion personally. I don't think anybody here believes that a difference indicates superiority.

I would love to participate in such a thread, and I bet that most BAUT members would enjoy it as well - and nobody will banter around terms like sexist in THAT thread!

Paracelsus, this is going to come as a shock to you, but my ego is not attached to my sex. I'm not on "the male team" and I'm not participating a battle of the sexes. Evolution and biology is incredibly interesting to me and that’s why I’m in this discussion. But I'm an individual. I don't take it personally that the majority of people who happen to share a chromosome with me are disadvantaged in the language department. That doesn't affect *me* at all. It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my life, so long as nobody is discriminating against me. It's an interesting question from a scientific standpoint, but it would be very silly and immature of me to link my personal identity to it.

Here, maybe you can understand this. This is an example of a logically parallel issue: Males tend to be taller than women. Should that make me feel superior? Why? I am not "males." I am a male. It turns out, I am below-average height (I'm 175cm, while the average is around 180) So, what does the statistic mean to me, personally? It meant that when the dice were rolled before I was born, I had a chance of being taller. But I'm not. I'm born now and *this* is what I am. Should I cheer for my "team?" I can't imagine why.

However, it is still an interesting issue that I'd like to discuss. I'm interested in science. I'd like to discuss the environmental conditions that led to the evolution of sexual dimorphism. I'm not going to cry about it. I'm not going to call you a sexist if you point out that men tend to be taller. That doesn't make men superior. It's just a fact.

We have more than one!

Luckily, since math is...big.This one? That appears to be a post by John Baez.

Yep, that's the one.

Let's start a new thread about it, rather then bump this rather unlovely one.

Am still howling with laughter over tofu's last post, and after the day at work I'm having today, I needed the laugh.

__________________
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)

Until you start your new thread this one may have to do. Here is another article by Baez on "categorification" -- which seems to be just putting a problem in the framework of categories and functors.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/9802/9802029v1.pdf

Hey, that's good! You came in here in denial about gender differences in math performance. Then you became angry, calling anyone who dared to disagree with you various names. I suppose laughter is a little bit like bargaining. Bargaining is step 3. Soon you'll go through a period of depression, and come out of it with acceptance. Good for you!

And the next time you're faced with this situation, just be careful to avoid letting emotion enter into it. Disagreements are OK. Don't try to silence people with your labels.

But yeah, like I said, way back in July when Disinfo Agent started this thread, the thread was about a study published in Science by Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis, and Williams. In spite of the problems with that study, they found a greater variance among the math scores of boys. That pretty much settles the issue, although I can find other studies to back it up.

Looking back at your last post, I noticed:
That "evidence" is in quotes. Does that indicate that you do not believe that men and women tend to have different language processing abilities? Are you aware that this has been confirmed by studies with MRIs?

This has all been covered quite extensively in the thread. If the above statement is the sum of your understanding of the evidence, all I can say is, read the thread and make a case that my summary of it was in any way lacking-- which you have so far failed to do. Also, be sure to pay attention to the rather crucial point that your above remark curiously ignores-- the issue of the thread was innate gender differences in mathematical ability, controlled for discrimination and environmental effects when they are present. Or don't you understand the difference?

I believe I was in this thread before you. Have you read the entire thread?

first you go read the actual study - not just newspaper articles about it. The study found that while average scores are about even, there is a small difference in variance. This, in spite the obvious problems with the study, namely that they used State assessment tests that are not difficult enough to properly reveal any difference. If I gave every member of this forum a math test with questions like, "what's 2+2" then I would find that nearly everyone could score 100% and I could proudly claim no differences between the genders. The tests they used are the product of No Child Left Behind, which means every school teaches to this test - preparing students to pass this test. A real study would use sufficiently difficult questions so that the average score was somewhere in the middle.

Nonetheless, even with this flaw (and the bias of the researchers, which I'll get to later) the study found the variance difference. And there are other studies as well. The one I especially like is Hedges and Nowell, 1995. This is well-established scientific fact. People like you, who have a moral objection and an emotional investment likely squelch or bias other research.

Well first I wanted to provide a service to all the people that you will ever meet in your entire life. I wanted to bring to your attention the fact that it's not OK to revert to name-calling when you meet someone with whom you disagree. If you hadn't been so hardheaded about it, if you'd simply replied, "you're right, I should be a dispassionate advocate for the truth" then we could have moved on days ago, or else maybe I would've been content to go back to lurking - I honestly do not care all that much about this. It was your and Paracelsus' arrogance and air of moral superiority that brought on my comment. Even if you are right in your interpretation of the study, the people that disagree with you are NOT sexists.

Anyway, your primary counter argument is tautology. I'm content with the findings of the Hyde study, and the one that posted above.

I pose to you the same question that I posed to Paracelsus. Do you think there are any average cognitive differences at all between males and females?

No, the study found there was not a significant difference in variance. Past studies have claimed there was a significant difference in variance, the article clearly quotes the study as saying this is not the case:
"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 will presume you don't need an explanation of the difference between your reference to a "small difference" and what is actually a statistically significant difference, as that is basic statistical analysis.

And what evidence can you cite that a more difficult test would reveal a difference? Just making up more arguments out of thin air, apparently. Or, if your point is that this study differs from smaller studies done in 1995, then I would simply say "well what a difference a decade and a more complete survey make".

And the relevance of this absurd argument is...? Are you claiming that everyone scored 100% on the exams in the OP study? I think you overestimate the math capabilities of the tested individuals, as DrRocket pointed out. Even the OP article said that the real issue here has nothing to do with gender differences, it has to do with widespread and prevailing lack of a stress on teaching analytical skills to both genders.And that means it doesn't test math aptitude, because...? Last I checked, aptitude involved the ability to be taught.
Now the study is not "real"? It is what, fake? The only thing fake here is the claim that a more difficult test would be more appropriate for probing innate differences in aptitude.
I already pointed to the simple logical fallacy in your claims about that study in the thread. Those fallacies put the lie to your incorrect conclusions about my "moral objections". My objections are scientific, and I'm happy to repeat them one more time:
The study you refer to is not in any way controlled for environmental factors. As such, the finding of increased variance cannot be traced to innate gender differences, and is in fact quite easily accounted for as an environmental factor. If boys who show promise are mentored by their male mathematics teachers, they will likely excel, and if boys who are good in sports and show less mathematical promise are discouraged from redressing their shortcomings, they will fall behind the curve. I cannot say for sure that is what is happening, but it seems a far cry more likely than invented innate differences. In any event, the logic is that the claim of any innate difference is simply not supported by the study you quote, and I'll bet they do not claim it does, being competant scientists.

If this point is still not clear to you, I would point out a similar example. If you look at the top scores in mathematics competitions in high schools in the US, you will always find asian students are disproportionately represented, by a large factor. By your logic, this implies asians have a difference in innate math ability. By my logic, it means no such thing, for it could also be (and likely is) a cultural difference about educational priorities among asian children.
That complaint is just in your mind, it has no relevance to anything transpiring in the written record of this thread. I told you already once that it was irrelevant, because in fact I have not called you any names, but now you repeat the complaint again, and again with no basis in fact. What I have done is point to the list of logical fallacies you are stringing together here. And here is just one more-- I said you failed to demonstrate any flaws in my summary (and indeed, above I am forced to repeat something I already pointed out in the thread). You come back with a reference to name calling. If you equate the two, then those words don't mean what you think they mean. (And that is also not name calling-- it is simply a statement of logical fact.)

Then you are "content" with a study that in no way establishes innate gender differences. In fact, it doesn't even claim that it establishes that-- since those scientists understand the difference.
As you still don't seem to understand the difference, I have to ask: do you mean, innate genetic cognitive differences linked to the y chromosome, or cognitive differences linked to environmental factors?

ETA:
This question is relevant to issues such as appears in http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0124104155.htm, which states:
"When coupled with strong implicit stereotypes about females' math competence, those women who do maintain strong identification with being female may be particularly vulnerable to leaving math and science fields, regardless of their mathematical prowess. Thus it appears that even when consciously disavowing stereotypes, female math students are still susceptible to negative perceptions of their ability. "
This is the kind of issue that any scientific effort to establish innate differences will need to control for, and indeed I not only suggested ways it can be controlled for, but other studies were cited in the thread that did exactly that. Guess what they found?

Significant is something of a weasel word there. You haven't read the study, and you don't know what the variance is, so you're just saying it's not significant and praying to the god of PC that I haven't read the study either. I have read the study, and though I'm not a statistician and therefore not in a position to say if any particular variance is significant in and of itself, it clearly is significant that the variance was always greater for males, and showed no particular trend. The maximum ratio of male variance to female variance was in the 8th grade, where the ratio was 1.21. It was lower among 9th graders, went up in the 10th grade, and down again in the 11th.

The authors of the study (the Hyde study, the study referenced in the OP of this thread) feel that this difference is not significant enough to explain the disparity of PhDs, but that's not the same thing as being not significant at all. Indeed, the authors say that their data predict twice as many males than females should be in PhD programs. Their findings predict 33% female participation, but reality shows only 15% participation.

A prediction of twice as many males than females is rather significant.

So once again Ken, you're wrong, and not on a matter of opinion but of fact. After the beating you've taken from Drunk Vegan earlier in this thread (starting around page 14 he referenced numerous scientific studies, but you have posted not one single shred of scientific evidence), I would think you'd be more careful about what you say. At what point do you step back and say, "wait a minute, some of these things are just matters of opinion, but some things, like whether a study showed variance (where I quoted you above), are not matters of opinion - and it seems that I get a lot of those kinds of things wrong, hmm, maybe I'm wrong"

You haven't posted any evidence at all to back up your claims. parejkoj helped you out by posting one study, but you've done nothing at all. Honestly, you're not very good at this. Also, I'd be willing to bet that you didn't read parejkoj's study either, because you're probably thinking it contradicts the two studies above. Unfortunately for you, that's not the case. parejkoj's study, which can be found here concluded that the gap in average scores is disappearing, but what did it say about variance? Well, here's a screenshot from page 18 of that study:



Whatayaknow, variance. Thailand, Iceland, the UK, and Indonesia are outliers. I wonder if they've achieved this by discouraging boys to pursue math - hey, maybe we can do the same in the US! (as an interesting side note, parejkoj's study found that the gender gap in average (not variance, but average) geometry was unaffected by social equality - I guess that'll be the next thread where people like Ken G take a haughty moral stand against the facts)

Finally, just to beat the horse entirely into the ground, here's another study (we'll call this one Hedges) that shows the same thing, only more significantly than Hyde.

Let's recap the central question of this thread: what evidence exists that there is any innate difference in mathematical ability? The answer is, there a consistent difference in variance across ages and cultures. This answer is supported by (among others):
1. The Hyde study (which found this difference, in spite of flaws that would mask such a difference)
2. The PISA data (shows the difference across all cultures)
3. The Hedges study

This issue is closed. The science is quite clear. If you're unable to accept the science, I will join you in the ATM forum and patiently continue explaining it to you.

...because the author's of the study said it wasn't the best possible test. Good lord, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Here's a direct quote from the study that you can't be bothered to read: "We computed the percentage of items at levels 3 or 4 for each state for each grade, .... The results were disappointing. For most states and most grade levels, none of the items were at levels 3 or 4. Therefore, it was impossible to determine whether there was a gender difference in performance at levels 3 and 4. The dearth of level-3 or level-4 items in state assessments has an additional serious consequence. With the increased emphasis on testing associated with NCLB, more teachers are gearing their instruction to the test."

I tried to give you an example of the effect this would have on the study, and your response was that the example was "an absurd argument." Maybe if you brought more to this debate than just your religious-like conviction that your opinion must be right, because your opinion is the only one that's moral and ethical, you might spend some time thinking about what I'm telling you. But I'm very patient, so I'll repeat myself. The Hyde study used tests that were too easy. If I gave you and Isaac Newton a test that included only questions like, "what is 2+2" then both of you would do very well on that test and I might conclude that you both have equal aptitude. But that's not true - my test is faulty. To find the truth, to differentiate between you and Newton, would require, at the very least, a test of basic logic. With that more difficult test, Newton would come out ahead.

Multiple studies, posted above, show a difference in variance. But if you use too easy a test, and if the teachers teach to that test so that the students simply regurgitate answers, then you mask the difference. And the Hyde study's authors state that the test is too easy.

I'll wait about 24 hours, and then explain all of this to you again.

No, I was simply trusting the eminently clear summary of the study found in the article.
So you have no evidence that the variance was significant, but you will assert that it is significant anyway. I'm glad I understand the situation.

Actually, the exact quote from Hyde, the author of that study, was:
"There just aren't gender differences anymore in math performance. So parents and teachers need to revise their thoughts about this."
But you can ignore that, for whatever reason you have.

Perhaps it has eluded you that the people in PhD programs today reflect performance in school years ago. Ergo, you are misinterpreting their conclusion, which is that the disparity is less than it used to be. But far more importantly, you are still equating professional performance with innate differences in aptitude. I'm not sure how many times I'm going to need to point out this recurrent fallacy in your logic, it is as though it never occured to you that people's environments affect their professional choices and performance in those choices. I cite common sense.
Actually, I am completely correct, because what I said was, you have so far completely failed to establish a shred of evidence in favor of innate genetic math aptitude differences. And that is still completely true. That fact stems from nothing but sheer logic-- as long as you ignore the obvious impact of environment, you can make zero meaningful conclusions about genetic differences.
He made the exact same mistake you are making now. The thread is about innate differences in aptitude. As such, I'm still waiting for you, or Drunk Vegan, or anyone, to present a shred of evidence that is controlled for all the environmental factors I had to point out to Drunk Vegan and am now pointing out to you, yet again. So you are saying that if a nation has greater performance by men in math, it must be due to innate differences (never mind the obvious environmental factors), but if women outperform men, it must be reverse-discriminating environmental factors! That's just amazing logic, I have to frame that.

You left out one thing, that is actually rather important. The differences disappear when you control for environmental factors, which is easily seen by a reducing trend in performance differences as gender equality is achieved elsewhere in the society. Of course this trend will only continue, so the contrary view will soon be gone completely, thankfully.

Furthermore, I note that you completely ducked my point about asian student math performance. Having a hard time swallowing that one, are you? Doesn't fit into your world view? But since it does fit your logical approach, you are forced to reach a far stronger conclusion about asian math aptitude.

By all means do, but this time, be sure to come equipped with an argument that is actually relevant to this thread, i.e., innate gender differences as distinguished from the obvious environmental factors that we all know about.

It's a man's world Ken!

And around and around we go.

Repeating my question:

__________________
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

What makes you think that this is "well-established scientific fact" or that intelligence tests are good measures of scientific or mathematical capability at high levels ?

Here are two, admittedly anectdotal but nevertheless telling, examples that, at least to me indicate that standardized IQ tests are not good indications of research potential.

Richard Feynman was once invited by a MENSA member to join that dubioius organization. He responded to the effect that he was delighted to decline on the basis that he did not meet the stated requirements of MENSA with regard to IQ. So far as I am concerned that speaks more to the validity of the IQ test itself than to Feynman's purported shortcomings.

A senior mathematican with whom I had numerous discussions while in graduate school once told me that he had a tested IQ of 105. That is not particularly high. He is one of the smarter people with whom I have the pleasure of working. I have had that pleasure with truly smart and accomplished individuals -- and their IQ was never an issue.

I remain completely unconvinced that intelligence tests are good indicators of research capability or potential in theoretical science.

And as an aside, I find your general tone in addressing Ken G rather distasteful and arrogant.

Talking about going "around and around," you are repeating your question? The fact is, I will persevere until the difference between innate and environmental factors is recognized. This is actually quite an elementary point, which is the only reason I have any hope of success.

This is too much fun. I can't wait the promised 24 hours!

lol! The article. This article. Not the Hyde study itself of course, but an article - because you haven't read the study. That article spins the study pretty heavily. Too bad you didn't read this article, which is also eminently clear and reports whole story. I suspect that you wont read that one either. Must. Keep. Out. Contradictory. Thoughts.

Since you're quoting Hyde, I might mention that her curriculum vita makes it abundantly clear that she is not a neutral observer here. Fortunately, she does have academic integrity, and the actual study includes the truth, which I'm happy to keep posting over and over again, each time you give me an opening. But when she conducts an interview, she's spinning it or the reporters are spinning it or both. That's why somebody has to be willing to go look at the data. Good thing I'm here, eh! And good thing you brought me out of lurk mode my refusing to accept my rebuke about ad homs!

Sure I do, and you know what Ken, I'm never too busy to repost actual data from an actual scientific study. It smells like ...victory. On a side note, look at what I did in the sentence you're responding to there - I made a concession and admitted my own limitation. I'm able to do that because I'm not emotionally invested in this. I'm honest because I'm not holding on for to dear life to a conviction that my way is the moral and ethical One True Way.

But anyway, here's the evidence again, straight from the Hyde study: They found a greater variance in scores among boys than among girls. The variance was always greater for males, and showed no particular trend. The maximum ratio of male variance to female variance was in the 8th grade, where the ratio was 1.21. It was lower among 9th graders, went up in the 10th grade, and down again in the 11th. The Hyde study authors say that their data predict twice as many males than females should be in PhD programs. Their findings predict 33% female participation, but reality shows only 15% participation. So in other words, based on the predictions of their study, 33% of PhDs should be female. (in fact, only 15% are. This would be where discrimination, if any, lies)

The fact that twice as many males *should be* is quite significant. I also put the central significant point in bold because you're probably not reading this sentence. But if you are, think carefully about the part after the comma in the bolded sentence. See if you can figure out what that means for environmental factors (hint: think about lead poisoning)

She's right - about averages. As her study shows, there is no difference in average performance. That's the part she wants to talk about, or journalists want to talk about. But as her study shows, there is a difference in the variances. More males tend to excel or flunk. Wow, good thing one of us had the bright idea to read the study, huh?

oh. Yes, that's true. Good point. There's a lag of perhaps six years. So, six years from now we should expect to see twice as many male PhD candidates as female. Today, only 15% are women, but in six years or so, that number should have climbed to 33%.

And this is predicted by the greater variance in math scores among males.

Well, consider the following:
1. the Hyde study (I've heard this one got a lot of press), which found a consistent difference in variance between males and females.
2. the PISA study, which found that variance to persist across cultures (that is, not a cultural artifact)
3. the Hedges study, which also shows a difference in variance, and which I feel is much more rigorous, and lacks much of the bias of Hyde.

You mean like the environment of planet Earth? Because I've posted the PISA study that covered a couple of dozen countries. What else can you possibly mean by controlling for environment, beyond what the PISA study did?

I'm all in favor of sending a control group of math majors to Mars, if that's what you mean.

Nope. The PISA study showed that the difference in average performance disappears, but the difference in variance remains. There's even a cool graph that shows this. If you missed it, no problem, I'm happy to post it again!



Admittedly though, this study did not have a control group on Mars.


Oh, this next point is so rich I can almost taste it! Ken believes that differences in performance here in the US are due to environmental factors like discrimination. I found a country where women outperform men, and with tongue planted firmly in cheek, I parodied his own argument by saying: I wonder if they've achieved this by discouraging boys to pursue math. Ken, oblivious to this because he's in knee-jerk, disagree-with-everything mode, responds (to his own line of reasoning):
Me too, buddy. Me too. This is turning into the MoonMan thread of gender issues.

Actually, I was doing you a favor. Since you haven't read the Hyde study, you don't know which states the data came from, so you can't possibly know why that's a dumb question. And you know what, I'm not going to tell you unless you bring it up again. Now you have a choice to make, you can let curiosity get the better of you, and open yourself up to more ridicule over the hilarious fact that you're arguing without having armed yourself with any facts. Or you can take the safe route, let it go, and forever feel that little needle down in your gut, knowing that you surrendered.

I assure you, you are nowhere within site of common sense.

I agree with you, and I note that sucth tests further leave completely unresolved the issue of innate vs. environmental influences on the outcomes. One of the most pervasive ways that discrimination propagates itself is the failure to recognize that simple difference, a failure we've seen exemplified over and over in this thread. I appreciate that, but personally I'm not offended, I basically ask for it when I mince no words in pointing out logical shortcomings. I realize people don't like to have their arguments characterized as fallacious, especially if they cannot see the fallacies themselves. But I do recognize that tit-for-tat verbal battles make for uninteresting reading for everyone else, which is essentially what Van Rijn is saying, albeit somewhat inaccurately. I'm really just trying to establish that there is a difference between an innate gap in aptitude, and environmental influences on performance. You are adding the point that even "aptitude" is a questionable concept as it relates to performance-- performance is its own end.

I fear you completely missed my point on this one, I regret I was so unclear. If you had understood at all what I was saying, you would know that the Hyde study, and its "states," has nothing whatever to do with my point here. So let me try again: look up the results of any US high school mathematics competition you like. Any one. Now, I'm telling you that you will find in the top performers a percentage of asian-americans that is far higher than their overall representation in whatever population is local to those schools. Do you doubt it? If you do not, then I would be very interested in hearing why you don't think your exact same logic must lead you to conclude that if men are innately better at math than are women, then asian males must be innately better, by a large margin, than white males. For some reason, I suspect that would be a bitter pill for you, but it's just your own logic. Personally, I can look to environment as the key factor there, but you, alas, cannot. So don't accept my expectation there, just live in a world where asians are innately better in math than are whites. I'm glad you think this is a competition, but I'm afraid if it were that, it would require judges-- and that's where you would have a problem counting your "victory." You see, all I have to do is peruse your latest post to find where you addressed the issue of separating innate and environmental factors. I'm sure it must be there somewhere, as I've made it so perfectly clear that this is in fact the crux of the whole issue, and indeed your own posts have used the word "innate" to describe the aptitude differences that you are talking about. Strange, I missed where you covered that in my initial reading. Hmm, nope, it isn't there at all, is it? Why not? Check and mate, I leave it to the judges.

I've posted links to studies that show the effect across ages and cultures. That completely settles it.

You misunderstand. These are math tests. By definition that is a measure of mathematical capability.

This is intentional and he richly deserves it. Here's a little trip down memory lane. I posted all that I had to say on this subject back in July. I recognized that some people disagreed with me, and I respected them nonetheless. On November 1st, Paracelsus posted this message, in which she claimed that my side of the argument was sexist, offensive, and pseudoscientific.

I can accept the fact that I may be wrong. I've "seen the light" on issues before (GW for example). But I will not sit still and be attacked personally. Nobody has a free pass to call me, or anyone else, a sexist for essentially claiming that humans are *gasp* like every other animal on planet Earth. The bottom line is, she lowered the discourse as far as I'm concerned. I reengaged to correct her.

Here's my response. I think I was very polite. Ken G then inserted himself and was quite flippant, right in his first sentence. He went on to say my side of the argument is completely unsupported by evidence. Really? I posted studies. Drunk Vegan posted studies. He waives all of that away with a flip of his hand.

And the best part of all of this, he's wrong! Paracelsus is wrong. They're wrong and they don't respect those who disagree with them. They've earned a good rhetorical lashing.

Just think about it: Ken G has posted nothing. Nothing at all. He doesn't even read the studies that I link to. This is the standard bearer for my opponents in this thread. Logic wont work with him, or anyone like him. Please allow me to at least have some fun with it.

Oh god, this is too much! My sides hurt. It's hard for me to type, but I have to ask, why is states in quotes? If you read that sentence aloud and do the little quote thing with your fingers, it's just such a wonderful image. I imagine you thinking something like, "these supposed 'states' which you claim exist but have no evidence for." Uh, here's a map. "This map doesn't control for plate tectonics!"

Your assertion is oversimplified and rather naive. Merely labeling a piece of a paper a "math test" does not make it a valid measure of "mathematical capability". Even the concept of "mathematical capability" is rather ill-defined.

In mathematics departments some tests are administered, with limited success. But the artiber of who is awarded the Ph.D. degree remains the production of an acceptable dissertation containing a significant original piece of research. That is actually the sole unalterable requirement for the degree.

If mathematicians cannot judge the "mathematical capability" of prospective Ph.D's with a simple test, what makes you think that others can judge "mathematical capability" in a meaningful way with such a test ?

You all just gave me an idea. Yes, I'm going to keep you hanging. You may hear back from me in a month or so.

I was right-- you just don't understand at all. My question is just so simple: why do you think, using your logic here. that asian-americans do proportionately much better in math competitions than does the white population that is more representative of the regions in question? Hmm? That holds for any region-- thus, the states are in fact completely irrelevant to the point I made, as is gender-- the Hyde study has nothing at all to say on the matter of this specific issue, zippo. I just can't say it any more clearly than that, nor do I have any idea why my relatively trivial point is so difficult to explain to you. I tried.

That's an excellent point. Probably there is often some kind of "hoop" to jump through at some point that is a test, whose purpose is to try and save students that will not likely succeed in research from a long and expensive process of finding that out, but I agree that it has limited success at doing that-- far better would be to let them all try and see what happens, but that's just not practical in many cases, so tests do end up getting used, for better or worse. Yes, professional success can really not be judged by anything other than professional success, there are just so many factors that go into it. And above all, one factor that can be decisive in preventing success is discouragement or disillusionment based on gender, or even the simple absence of an appropriate role model. That is a point that I feel is perfectly obvious to most people, although apparently not to some on this thread.