Females and mathematics/Physics

[black magick hustla]

I been trying to make a thread about this for a while.

The Astrophysics ratio of male/female in grad school is 13/4, and it is worse in the pure physics grad school here. The faculty situation is even worse. Undergrad is a little better in my classes - the astro ones are probably around 6/4 for males, females, the pure physics one I would say about 12/4.

It always made me wonder why in the current order of things females are not attracted to the very mathematical sciences. Theres a lot of females in biology and the ratio is not terrible in chemistry either. However in either pure math or physics the ratio is abysmal. I doubt it has to do with our phenotypes at all, because I consider myself fairly bright on physics stuff and there are females in the classroom that surpass me. So it must be something social. It probably has to do with the whole geeky/nogeeky thing too to an extent, because stuff branded as geeky is famous for being very male centric.

People say it has to do with the styles of learning too. Some academics say females are better at verbal stuff while males are more "quantitative". I disagree vehemently, I think females are better at verbal stuff because it is what is expected from them. For example, males are encouraged to play with legos when they are kids, which develops spatial and quantitative skills, while females play with dolls, with develop social skills.

Physics male students are terrible concerning gender issues though, 'cuz most of us are emotionally broken geeks. For example there is always that thinking that hot females are dumb as rocks and the only smart ones are the ugly ones.

So what are your opinions?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If men are logical, and there is no evidence of an environmental cause, we should assume it's genetic. If there is any legitimate evidence to believe otherwise, we should evaluate it and refine our position. Here's my take.

1. Men are more mathematical than women, percentage wise, but there is an innumerable amount of evidence for cultural influence.

2. As far as I know, this difference has been less prevalent in other cultures, but it has always existed. I'd really appreciate a counterexample if someone has one. I mean that in a genuine way. That would put a lot of context into this debate.

3. Unfortunately, almost everyone has a terrible attitude towards certain conclusions. If we don't like what we hear, we often don't properly consider the alternatives. For instance, I'm having difficulty finding articles supporting this idea.

4. If there is a difference, it's not necessarily clear what that means. Mathematics is primarily conceptualized in terms of numbers. While it may seem more efficient to use numbers over shapes and patterns, this doesn't make it better. In High School, I excelled in mathematics and language. For me, sustaining both skills was difficult. Relatively, I tended to do worse in one subject whenever I focused more on the other. In theory, I may have simply ignored one subject. In practicality, it felt like one methodology infringed upon the other somewhat. Working on math and language was not a simple conjunction of studying both. It was a conjunction in addition to an additional strain caused by forcing cooperation upon my brain. If we're training genders to be better at a certain skill, this might be part of the problem. We simply presume the two skills have no interaction. It's very likely my perceived action is just studying less. I'd have to ask an expert. I could theoretically get them to test this. Has anyone else felt like this?

5. To get back on track, I'll mention the fact that there is a mathematical bias in society. Mathematics can be explained in shapes. In logic, I understand complex ideas better if I have pictures. Because of biases, we associate pictures with being primitive. I think the facilitate a "truer" (my bias coming in) understanding. Math are rules developed for efficiency. It's easier to do math with numbers. If I can explain to you the methodologies of algebra, I don't have a clue what how algebra works. Maybe I've always been so skilled with my right brain I've learned mathematics entirely spatially. I don't know. I can't conceive of someone claiming real understanding of something based on a linguistic system. Until you attach that system to a spatial object, you have a methodology - not understanding. You can recognize a rock and move out of the way without giving it a linguistic definition. You can't have the word rock and know something.

6. These points are more blending together, but I like separations. Consider someone who plays a board game. They roll a 2 and move two spaces. If I roll a three, do I move three spaces? Would that question arise innately because of the left brain? I'd like to think so. However, they don't understand it without the sensory data.

7. Consider any math teachers you've had. They fail miserably at explaining math to you or someone else. In many cases, people have issues with math presented as a left-brain issue. Look at Feynman. He came up with an understanding of physics, but he didn't know how it corresponds to the mathematical models. Why? Well, nobody ever explains the mathematical models. Half of them don't understand the models. They know 2+2=4, but that's the rule. When you add certain numbers, that happens. How many people really understand math?

8. I got 90% in High School math. If I followed the rules, I got rewarded. Because of my skills, I could apply understandings that satisfied me. Sometimes it wasn't much of an understanding. I simply saw that doing that method got the result that, using another method I did understand, I knew was true. Pythagorean theorem you might trust after you measure it with your ruler. Mathematics may inherently be memorizing relations with no understanding of them, I don't know. Once I reached algebra, I was starting to get annoyed. I just followed the rules and became a calculator.

9. Where is the "Why" in mathematics? If it's simply that "it produces good results," these mathematicians should own up. Stop telling us math is a brilliant system that shows truth and admit it's the memorization of rules. I think you can explain how the relations work, in terms of real examples, to facilitate an understanding. Mathematics rarely does this, or can't, and leaves us confused. We want some sort of real explanation. They always assume we're too stupid to use our left-brain and/or too stupid to use both sides of our brain to create a "true" understanding.

[superiority]

Physics and maths are decidedly un-girly subjects, chemistry and biology less so. It's the whole social-construction-of-gender thing, including technical subjects being a "manly" activity and stereotypes of "nerds" (note that biology and chemistry are often considered 'less nerdy' sciences, at least in my experience) being predominantly male.


Physics male students are terrible concerning gender issues though, 'cuz most of us are emotionally broken geeks. For example there is always that thinking that hot females are dumb as rocks and the only smart ones are the ugly ones.

Just thank god you're not doing CS :p

[black magick hustla]

7. Consider any math teachers you've had. They fail miserably at explaining math to you or someone else. In many cases, people have issues with math presented as a left-brain issue. Look at Feynman. He came up with an understanding of physics, but he didn't know how it corresponds to the mathematical models. Why? Well, nobody ever explains the mathematical models. Half of them don't understand the models. They know 2+2=4, but that's the rule. When you add certain numbers, that happens. How many people really understand math?

Mathematics is like logic and language. Some things are self-evident by themselves and their explanation cannot be verbalized. 2+2=4 because it can be shown, simple as that.

[Module]

I had a discussion with a friend of mine about this a little while ago, funnily enough.
There is a sort of social barrier between girls, at school (or at least at my school) and certain subjects. Maths, economics and science, and politics to a lesser degree. Where girls do participate more, i.e. in science and even subjects like 'history' there still seems to be something which stops them from getting too intellectually involved in those subjects. It's hard to explain but hopefully some people here will know what I mean?
I have no doubt that it's not as bad nowadays than it used to be. It used to be a fairly accepted fact that boys did better than girls at maths in school, but of course recently it was discovered that this was false (http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3191/girls-as-good-as-boys-at-math-study-finds).
At some point I am sure that boys did do better at maths than girls did. It's hard for people to become intellectually involved in a subject that they are generally socialised into believing isn't really 'for them'.

People say it has to do with the styles of learning too. Some academics say females are better at verbal stuff while males are more "quantitative". I disagree vehemently, I think females are better at verbal stuff because it is what is expected from them. For example, males are encouraged to play with legos when they are kids, which develops spatial and quantitative skills, while females play with dolls, with develop social skills. I would agree with that.
A couple of years ago in a 'Society and Culture' class, we watched a video about the differences between boys and girls in how they are brought up. In terms of the toys they are given, the play they are encouraged to engage in, boys are encouraged to go out and explore the world around them, play with puzzles or toy vehicles etc. etc. whereas girls are given toys like toy ovens and dolls houses, and are discouraged from going out and getting dirty and things like that. The analogy they used was giving girls 'roots' and boys 'wings'.
I have also read elsewhere that one of the reasons that so many more boys are diagnosed with Aspergers than girls may be because girls are pushed further to adapt socially, and also have a greater amount of support from their friends and so the problem is less likely to be picked up on by the adults around them.
I think any girl on this board will agree that social acceptance is far more important for us girls than it is for boys.

[Sean]

A couple of years ago in a 'Society and Culture' class, we watched a video about the differences between boys and girls in how they are brought up. In terms of the toys they are given, the play they are encouraged to engage in, boys are encouraged to go out and explore the world around them, play with puzzles or toy vehicles etc. etc. whereas girls are given toys like toy ovens and dolls houses, and are discouraged from going out and getting dirty and things like that. The analogy they used was giving girls 'roots' and boys 'wings'.
This isn't the best write up of the study (http://www.yerkes.emory.edu/news-item-43) , but I'll summarise it. Basically studies show that male and female monkeys select the same toys to play with that male and female humans do.

These results may be applied to other sex differences. Hassett offered, “Traditional thinking is sex differences, such as career choice and performance on specific types of cognitive tests, are a result of socialization – labeling professions as masculine or feminine and teaching boys and girls differently. While this almost certainly occurs, it is possible our early preferences shape our environment such that later in life men and women seek different activities and ways of spending time and resources.”

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I had a discussion with a friend of mine about this a little while ago, funnily enough.
There is a sort of social barrier between girls, at school (or at least at my school) and certain subjects. Maths, economics and science, and politics to a lesser degree. Where girls do participate more, i.e. in science and even subjects like 'history' there still seems to be something which stops them from getting too intellectually involved in those subjects. It's hard to explain but hopefully some people here will know what I mean?

I'm afraid I don't. Perhaps you could attempt to elaborate for me? I'm genuinely interested and I have surprisingly few memories of school.

[Module]

This isn't the best write up of the study (http://www.yerkes.emory.edu/news-item-43) , but I'll summarise it. Basically studies show that male and female monkeys select the same toys to play with that male and female humans do.
Well, it sort of says that.

Yerkes researchers compared the interactions of 11 male and 23 female rhesus macaques with human wheeled toys (masculine) and plush toys (feminine). Like young boys, male monkeys strongly preferred wheeled toys, while female monkeys, similar to young girls, played more equally with both types of toys. “Young girls show a broader range of play patterns than boys, playing with many different kinds of toys,” said Hassett. “We found this to be true with the female monkeys as well. This suggests that rather than specific socialization determining toy preferences, it’s more likely biases in preferences that exist at birth” continued Hassett.
That's not necessarily a contradiction of what I said, if anything the idea that girls would play equally with the 'masculine' and 'feminine' toys shows that girls being, as the documentary showed, told to play with excessively gendered toys is not necessarily a 'natural preference' at all, would it not?
Regardless, I am skeptical of studies that suggest that behaviour of monkeys suggests things about human beings.
When you go into childrens toy shops or sections of shops you can clearly see where the 'girls' section is because it's the part that's a homogenously blinding pink. The 'boys' section, on the other hand, is no specific colour, or usually even specific kinds of toys. There is far more of a variation when it comes to toys intended for male children than female children.

[revolution inaction]

This study shows that any diffrence in maths ability between girls and boys is social
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14026-exploding-the-myth-that-boys-are-better-at-maths.html


In countries where women occupy an equal position to men in society, such as Sweden, there was virtually no gender gap in maths ability. However, in countries with lower levels of gender equality, such as Turkey, the boys performed better in maths tests than the girls.

and this one two

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10333-negative-stereotypes-make-women-worse-at-maths.html


Women told that female under-achievement in mathematics is due to genetic factors perform much worse on maths tests than those told that social factors are responsible.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Mathematics is like logic and language. Some things are self-evident by themselves and their explanation cannot be verbalized. 2+2=4 because it can be shown, simple as that.

I'd like to think that, but it's difficult to give something legitimacy simply because it's unchallenged. We generally want something to justify our statement. If it's self-evident, that's lacking. For instance, we'd presume 2+2=4. However, if the only use for adding was determining how many people need to be sacrificed, why would we support the idea that 2+2=4? If they God's require a sacrifice of 4 people daily, why doesn't 0+0=4 in the case of such matters?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'd like to think that, but it's difficult to give something legitimacy simply because it's unchallenged. We generally want something to justify our statement. If it's self-evident, that's lacking. For instance, we'd presume 2+2=4. However, if the only use for adding was determining how many people need to be sacrificed, why would we support the idea that 2+2=4? If they God's require a sacrifice of 4 people daily, why doesn't 0+0=4 in the case of such matters?

You're conflating the idea of human sacrifice being necessary with the amount that sacrifice requires. Even if you disagree that any kind of sacrifice is required, you can still agree that if you have two apples, and I give you two more, that proves that 2+2=4.

Math is morally neutral. Your inclusion of a moral dimension is misleading to say the least.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

You're conflating the idea of human sacrifice being necessary with the amount that sacrifice requires. Even if you disagree that any kind of sacrifice is required, you can still agree that if you have two apples, and I give you two more, that proves that 2+2=4.

Math is morally neutral. Your inclusion of a moral dimension is misleading to say the least.

That's an analytic truth. If I say you're chocolate, and you deny it, I can say. The conjunction of your qualities is chocolate. It tells is nothing about the "relation" between the objects.

If the relation 1+1=2 is universally useful, we'll accept it. My moral example is thrown away. By definition, math doesn't included moral examples. That says nothing about what math actually is.

Suggesting universal pragmatism is proof is a bold claim. Certainly, the existence of an impartial mathematics is useful. However, if our definitions are not pragmatic, we eliminate them. If mathematics told us a poor conclusion, why is the preservation of "pure mathematics" necessarily preferable to individual concerns? Science is corrupted all the time for political ends.

I still operate under the idea that mathematics and reason are special, but there is still some explaining to do, I think. If we chance the definition of mathematics to make addition false, where did the relation go? Is it a Platonic form? Is it an intrinsic part of reality? When I die, does math exist? Do other people exist? Why or why not? If everyone dies, does reality exist? We've always assumed "yes." We think there is some underlying rationality independent of us. What if we are the underlying rationality?

The worry I'm expressing is basically epistemological anarchism. I don't like epistemological anarchism, but it has some relevant claims.

Don't pay much attention to me. I'm having an existential crisis these days.

[Eva]

Any difference in math ability between the genders is a result of nurture. According to new research published in the journal Science, the "gender gap" in maths disappears in societies that treat both sexes equally.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/30/schools.uk1

[Devrim]

People tend to get very emotional about issues like these. The idea that there is a difference between boys and girls really upsets them. A lot of people here have quoted from an article in New Scientist, which suggests that 'any difference in math ability between the genders is a result of nurture'.

What people didn't really pick up on was this:

"The gender gap in mathematics doesn't seem to be a feature of every society," says Sapienza. What's more, the girls produced better reading scores than the boys in all the countries looked at, but did even better in countries with higher levels of gender equality.



On average, girls have reading scores that are 32.7 points higher than those of boys (6.6% higher than the mean average score for boys). In Turkey, this amounts to 25.1 points higher, and in Iceland, girls score 61.0 points higher.


This seems to suggest that there is a real difference between boys and girls in reading. The difference is that people don't get accused of being sexist when they say that girls are better at something.


I sure that if tests were made girls would come out as being better at some activities. That suggests that reading is one, and I would suggest that language learning is another. I would be equally sure that there are some things where boys would be better. I would suggest that chess maybe one of them. That does not mean that some of the difference can be caused by nurture. Not that many women are encouraged to play chess after all. But conversely that doesn't mean that there is no difference, as according to this research seems to be the case with maths.


That could turn out to be the case with chess too. I do think though that there is a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that men are better at spacial problems. I am not at all worried about that though. Perhaps it is because I understand what it means.


Men are faster than women. This is a fact. Since records have begun for 100m races, the fastest woman has never been faster than the fastest man*. This would, however, not do me much good if I were in a race with Gail Devers. If it is a fact that men are better at chess than women, it still doesn't help me when I am being destroyed by a certain female poster on RevLeft.


What these things mean is that there is a slight difference in the range of speed or chess ability, that the very fastest man is faster than the very fastest woman, or that the very best chess player plays better than the very best woman. It does not say that any individual man or woman is a better chess player or sprinter.


Men are different from women in lots of ways:



The basal metabolic rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate) is about 6 percent higher in adolescent boys than girls and increases to about 10 percent higher after puberty. Women tend to convert more food into fat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat), while men convert more into muscle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle) and expendable circulating energy reserves. Women (on average) are about 52 percent as strong as men in the upper body, and about 66 percent as strong in the lower.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#cite_note-3) Men, on average, have denser, stronger bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone), tendons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendon), and ligaments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligament). Men dissipate heat faster than women through their sweat glands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_gland).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Women have a greater insulation and energy reserves stored in subcutaneous fat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcutaneous_fat), absorbing endothermic heat less and retaining exothermic heat to a greater degree.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Sex differences in endurance events are less significant than for sprinting events.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Men typically have larger tracheae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate_trachea) and branching bronchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchus), with about 30 percent greater lung volume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_volumes) per body mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass). They have larger hearts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart), 10 percent higher red blood cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell) count, higher hemoglobin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin), hence greater oxygen-carrying capacity. They also have higher circulating clotting factors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coagulation) (vitamin K (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_K), prothrombin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrombin) and platelets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platelet)). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wound) and higher peripheral pain tolerance.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#cite_note-Glucksman-4)
Women typically have more white blood cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_blood_cell) (stored and circulating), more granulocytes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granulocyte) and B and T lymphocytes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymphocyte). Additionally, they produce more antibodies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody) at a faster rate than men. Hence they develop fewer infectious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection) diseases and succumb for shorter periods.

And girls are better at reading, and boys (maybe) better at chess. So what?

Devrim


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's an analytic truth. If I say you're chocolate, and you deny it, I can say. The conjunction of your qualities is chocolate. It tells is nothing about the "relation" between the objects.

And you would be wrong. "Chocolate" has a defined set of properties which I do not possess. Otherwise I would not be able to leave my fridge for fear of melting, for example.


If the relation 1+1=2 is universally useful, we'll accept it. My moral example is thrown away. By definition, math doesn't included moral examples. That says nothing about what math actually is.Seems to me that mathematics is an abstract tool.


Suggesting universal pragmatism is proof is a bold claim. Certainly, the existence of an impartial mathematics is useful. However, if our definitions are not pragmatic, we eliminate them. If mathematics told us a poor conclusion, why is the preservation of "pure mathematics" necessarily preferable to individual concerns? Science is corrupted all the time for political ends.I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The Earth has a fixed diameter no matter what units you choose to measure it with.


I still operate under the idea that mathematics and reason are special, but there is still some explaining to do, I think. If we chance the definition of mathematics to make addition false, where did the relation go?It appears that mathematics includes addition as a necessary part of it - if you define mathematics so as to not include addition, it is no longer useful as a tool.


Is it a Platonic form? Is it an intrinsic part of reality? When I die, does math exist? Do other people exist? Why or why not? If everyone dies, does reality exist? We've always assumed "yes." We think there is some underlying rationality independent of us. What if we are the underlying rationality?Maths and science are predicated on the assumption that there is a consistent reality seperate from human consciousness. Obervations bear this out. All else is pointless solipsism.


The worry I'm expressing is basically epistemological anarchism. I don't like epistemological anarchism, but it has some relevant claims.

Don't pay much attention to me. I'm having an existential crisis these days.Really, I don't see the point in denying that which is self-evident.

[black magick hustla]

Man Devrim, I for the first time disagree with you:




This seems to suggest that there is a real difference between boys and girls in reading. The difference is that people don't get accused of being sexist when they say that girls are better at something.
Is the same issue I've been arguing about. Girls are nurtured to be verbal. Reading skills are part of verbal skills.



I sure that if tests were made girls would come out as being better at some activities. That suggests that reading is one, and I would suggest that language learning is another. I would be equally sure that there are some things where boys would be better. I would suggest that chess maybe one of them. That does not mean that some of the difference can be caused by nurture. Not that many women are encouraged to play chess after all. But conversely that doesn't mean that there is no difference, as according to this research seems to be the case with maths.



That could turn out to be the case with chess too. I do think though that there is a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that men are better at spacial problems. I am not at all worried about that though. Perhaps it is because I understand what it means.The thing about this argument Devrim is that it is the same type of argument used by racists. I've haven't seen a single black kid in my physics classes, nor I've seen any other hispanic people except myself. Tests says we "spics" and "niggers" are worse at learning mathematics than our white counterparts. I don't think I am worse at math than white people just because I am not white. In fact, I am better than most of my classmates at it.



Men are faster than women. This is a fact. Since records have begun for 100m races, the fastest woman has never been faster than the fastest man*. This would, however, not do me much good if I were in a race with Gail Devers. If it is a fact that men are better at chess than women, it still doesn't help me when I am being destroyed by a certain female poster on RevLeft.:shrugs:, this are physical qualities, not mental qualities. Anyone who says females are physically weaker because of socialization is too entrenched in ideology. A lot of black folks end up playing basketball because they are physically taller than white or hispanic people. Same argument about gender.




And girls are better at reading, and boys (maybe) better at chess. So what?I don't think this is true because of natural reasons. The same way I don't think it is true that women are better at householding for natural reasons too.

[Devrim]

:shrugs:, this are physical qualities, not mental qualities. Anyone who says females are physically weaker because of socialization is too entrenched in ideology. A lot of black folks end up playing basketball because they are physically taller than white or hispanic people. Same argument about gender.

What is the difference between a physical and a mental quality? The brain is a physical organ, just like the heart, or the kidney. The alternative to this is believing in some idea of the self which is somehow divorced from that physical organ, a soul perhaps.

Of course, you would aspect their to be differences between men and women's brains if only because they are running a completely different set of reproductive organs. I think that scientific evidence suggests that there is. Tests on hand eye co-ordination at different distances show significantly different results for males and females. Is that all down to nurture too?


The thing about this argument Devrim is that it is the same type of argument used by racists.

I don't think that it is really, but that is not the point. If it is true that women are better at different cognitive skills than men, we can't ignore that just because the 'argument' is being used by racists.


I've haven't seen a single black kid in my physics classes, nor I've seen any other hispanic people except myself. Tests says we "spics" and "niggers" are worse at learning mathematics than our white counterparts. I don't think I am worse at math than white people just because I am not white. In fact, I am better than most of my classmates at it.

I haven't at all suggested that there is any difference between different ethnic groups. I was talking about men and women. Nor am I denying that the environment has any role in shaping these differences, and that some of them could be completely down to the role of nurture.

However, even if it were true that 'whites' learn maths better than 'Hispanics', which I would imagine to be a completely absurd suggestion, that wouldn't mean that we should be surprised when a Hispanic student is best in the class.

To go back to what I talked about before was that woman being better at languages, which I think is true doesn't, mean that every man is better than every woman. In fact the best language learner that I have ever met was a man (27 fluent languages), and the worst I have ever met was a woman. Think about it in a similar way to height. Men tend to be taller than women. This is true. It doesn't mean that you never meet a woman taller than you, does it?

The second point on this is that even if it were shown that all things being equal one ethnic group was better at maths than another (and I think this is extremely unlikely), I don't think that that would justify discriminating against them.


Is the same issue I've been arguing about. Girls are nurtured to be verbal. Reading skills are part of verbal skills.

I am very doubtful about putting it all down to nurture.

Devrim

[Cumannach]

I would be very doubtful about a significant difference between female and male ability whatever about interest. From my experience of college maths, where the F/M ratio was usually approaching parity for females, and where many, often most, of the best students in a class were females and usually more of the males were the worst, as well as my experience of giving grinds to school students, I would be inclined to suspect there is no real difference in average ability.

[superiority]

What is the difference between a physical and a mental quality? The brain is a physical organ, just like the heart, or the kidney. The alternative to this is believing in some idea of the self which is somehow divorced from that physical organ, a soul perhaps.

I think it has something to do with the brain being an absurdly more complicated organ than either of those, as well as demonstrating a very strong propensity for plasticity, to the extent where the collective power of a whole bunch of influences over the course of twenty years of development can create all kinds of surprising outcomes that it would be ridiculous to put down to sex. Or something like that.

[Devrim]

I think it has something to do with the brain being an absurdly more complicated organ than either of those, as well as demonstrating a very strong propensity for plasticity, to the extent where the collective power of a whole bunch of influences over the course of twenty years of development can create all kinds of surprising outcomes that it would be ridiculous to put down to sex. Or something like that.

But none of that means that there are not innate differences between males and females. Indeed one could equally argue that its very complexity means that there is more likelihood of innate differences.

Devrim

[NecroCommie]

Its a cultural thing. I say this out of my personal experience. Through my entire daycare and elementary school my friends were predominantly girls. In high school I had problems since I was the "girly guy". Nowadays I try to apply to studies that are considered girly. Well, at least they are considered girly over here. In general I have noticed how my childhood social norms have left me unable to understand the basic "manly" activities, and these include the school curriculum.

Did I mension that I am currently wearing my mothers ex-night robe, which has a lace neck flurry thing. You know, the kind of baroque noble mans shirt, except womans. :)

[eyedrop]

I'd like to think that, but it's difficult to give something legitimacy simply because it's unchallenged. We generally want something to justify our statement. If it's self-evident, that's lacking. For instance, we'd presume 2+2=4. However, if the only use for adding was determining how many people need to be sacrificed, why would we support the idea that 2+2=4? If they God's require a sacrifice of 4 people daily, why doesn't 0+0=4 in the case of such matters?

Aren't most of regular mathematics derived from the euclidean axioms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_axioms#Axioms) Even they are not taken as self evident by mathematicians, as there are an whole other branch of geometry based around if the Parallel Postulate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate) is untrue.

2 is defined from (as seem to remember to learn it) a segment on a infinite straight line. Construct a equal segment next to it on the line and both of those are defined as 2 and the rest of the numbers, and multiplicative and additive rules, are derived from that.

Mathematics is certainly lot's of rule learning and not much focus on the why's, but the proofs are usually way harder to understand than to learn how to apply the rule.


But none of that means that there are not innate differences between males and females. Indeed one could equally argue that its very complexity means that there is more likelihood of innate differences.

DevrimI agree with you that there are likely, on average, differences in innate abilities between males and females. Alot of what we se today is likely up to cultural reasons, but it would be an amazing coinsidence if males and females, with slightly different brain structures, would be "created" (yes, that would almost need a creator) with, on average, the exactly same innate abilities.

Not that it matters much anyway since most people aren't close to their potential anyway, but I can see how it could create problems if more members of one sex shows itself to be more proficient with skills that are deemed highly valuable by society. If 75% were of a highly valuable profession were one gender that could create problems for gender equality. A solution would be for people to stop identifying so damn much along gender lines.

This discussion is in my view abstract, (nonetheless quite pleasant) as we will first need to deal with the rampant sexism in todays culture and see where we end up after that.

[Le Libérer]

That could turn out to be the case with chess too. I do think though that there is a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that men are better at spacial problems. I am not at all worried about that though. Perhaps it is because I understand what it means.

What these things mean is that there is a slight difference in the range of speed or chess ability, that the very fastest man is faster than the very fastest woman, or that the very best chess player plays better than the very best woman. It does not say that any individual man or woman is a better chess player or sprinter. First of all, chess is mathematical equations. It involves a lot of problem solving. Your mind is constantly scanning the board and piecing together possible solutions. Chess challenges you to explore new combinations and anticipate the result.

To quote another text

Chess is about thinking logically. There are six different types of pieces, each moving in a different direction, over a different amount of spaces. A chessboard is symmetric with a diagonal line of symmetry. The chessboard consists of eight rows by eight columns, alternating in color, and can be seen as a plane. Players learn and master how the pieces move through the plane and can apply what they know about mathematics to make beneficial combinations of moves. The chess pieces create different line patterns on the board since each piece moves differently through the plane. In chess, female Chess Masters make up 1% of that level. I doubt Grand Master level includes that high of a percentage of women. As a woman who has a Chess Master ranking, I usually see the results of any action I'm about to take up to five moves, anticipating my opponents most logical move. This kind of problem solving is highly specialized.

I cant answer why or how I became so proficent at chess, being only nominally interested in math per sae. (except I am highly competitive, another trait usually reserved for men)Math classes just didnt interest me. I will say this. I put all 4 of my children in front of a chess board at the age of 5. My oldest two boys are expert level, my youngest son is close to being Grand Master level, he being a child protege, tournamented and won most of them into his teens. My daughter still to this day doesnt know where the pieces go. Why is that? She was conditioned and encouraged by almost everything around her (excluding me) to develop other interests. As a parent, I think we look for what our children like and are good at, if its positive, we encourage it. Thats the only defining thing I can offer as to why boys appear to be better at math and science than girls, we (society)want them to rule the world (I say that half jokingly but those kinds of expectations happen).