ions, a new study shows: http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/10/23/5712

This is pretty obvious to a lot of people, but not to all.

Quote :

"The researchers looked for performance differences between the two groups on the math comprehension sections. The section before the essay was used to control for random differences between the two groups. They then repeated the entire experiment using a modified methodology to ensure that the findings were robust. The end result was that the women who read the "inherent differences make women bad at math" essay performed significantly worse than the others. The probability of the difference occurring by chance was less than one percent, which, considering the relatively small sample, makes this a pretty strong result."

What I think is also another important aspect of this test is this part:

Quote :

"One of their conclusions is an interesting one; scientific theories that promulgate genetic explanations for performance difference become self-fulfilling. This is thought to be because people believe they have more control over their response to experiences, while having little control over their genetic heritage. The point being, that perhaps we need to be a bit careful in promoting social science theories which define certain groups as inherently less able."

There's a lot of policy based on categorizing certain groups to be certain ways, and this study indicates that those policies designed to help those people, may actually hurt some of them by their nature. That doesn't mean they need to be eliminated, just either reforumlated, or have a set expiration period.

10/23/2006 4:01:05 PM

For clarity:

The article only shows that low expectations of someone lead to poorer results. Boy, that's news.

It does NOT contradict the research that shows that women ARE inherently less capable at math.

10/23/2006 4:04:44 PM

Inherently is a bad choice of word, because it implies inheritance, which implies genetics. This research is indicating that it's not inherited. It is just a common characteristic to many women of the current generation, likely due to low expectations of them.

10/23/2006 4:13:23 PM

I'm just confused by the fact that a guy would have TULIPlovr as a screenname.

10/23/2006 4:14:39 PM

I'm awesome at math, fools.

10/23/2006 5:38:35 PM

There might be some biological differences relating to left brain, right brain differences. Men might be worse at verbal stuff for the same reasons

One thing to consider is that even if there is a mean difference, biological factors are still a bell curve with some women doing better than the majority of men. It would be interesting to know which has more of an effect, the biological, or the social.

10/23/2006 5:44:41 PM

girls are better at school work because they like being rewarded and good grades are "rewards"

but when it comes to actually doing something with the things they wrote down on paper and turned in...that's a whole other story

to them, an A is proof that they're able to do something

10/23/2006 5:54:02 PM

really stunning and supported theory you got there chief.

10/23/2006 7:29:40 PM

It just goes to show ... If you say something with authority ...

10/23/2006 9:01:57 PM

I already heard about women doing worse when feeling less able in a Social Psych class. Still, people's ability to be what others expect them to be never ceases to amaze me.

And as a statistician,

Quote :

"the relatively small sample, makes this a pretty strong result."

wtf?

10/24/2006 12:44:35 AM

Sociologists can "prove" any preconcieved hypothesis that fits into their belief system.

It doesn't make it fact, though.

10/24/2006 12:57:33 AM

Actually, men are better at "verbal stuff" too. It's complete domination except in cake baking.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003303566_brainsed14.html

Women slightly higher on the that new writing section, but that advantage disappears in the GRE results. No biggie, since it's well known that women try harder in high school.

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 1:41 AM. Reason : sdfs]

10/24/2006 1:34:31 AM

Careful, "they" forced the president of Harvard to resign for such utterances--among other alleged things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/education/22harvard.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=ab500a1a1e52055c&ex=1298264400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

10/24/2006 1:38:18 AM

Quote :

"And as a statistician, Quote : "the relatively small sample, makes this a pretty strong result." wtf?"

You left out this part:

Quote :

"The probability of the difference occurring by chance was less than one percent"

To have such a clear trend (>99% certainty) on a small scale bodes well for a larger scale test to confirm the result. If it was less certain, they couldn't say with much confidence that their theory is on the right track.

10/24/2006 1:53:26 AM

Quote :

"Steven Heine, an associate professor of social psychology at UBC and the co-author of the study, said the study should force researchers and the media to be more cautious when talking about a "gene" for obesity or other diseases because most people incorrectly see genes as fate. "

They are pseudoscientists. How predictable.

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 2:19 AM. Reason : 2]

10/24/2006 2:19:03 AM

It's more scientific than most economic theories.

Did you find any flaws with their methodology, or are you just being a douche?

10/24/2006 2:23:17 AM

The methodology isn't too bad, it's his (and your) broad conclusions that I have a problem with. You act like this "lower expectations" phenomenon somehow completely explains the massive underrepresentation of women in math-intensive fields such as engineering, while ignoring countless studies chronicling readily observable cognitive differences between the sexes starting at a very young age.

It doesn't.


[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 2:33 AM. Reason : 2]

10/24/2006 2:28:49 AM

Quote :

"One thing to consider is that even if there is a mean difference, biological factors are still a bell curve with some women doing better than the majority of men. It would be interesting to know which has more of an effect, the biological, or the social."

These are the things that are hard to quantify. I don't think you can dispute the study. It's backed up by hundreds more that show low expectation equal low performance.

The problem is that people act like it's black and white while, in truth, there is a continuum of abilities, and math isn't the only skill worth having. At least for now, t's not quite an excuse for a superiority complex ...

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 7:59 AM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/24/2006 7:39:17 AM

ummm stereotype threat has been known about for a long long long time

[old]

10/24/2006 7:52:42 AM

Quote :

"The methodology isn't too bad, it's his (and your) broad conclusions that I have a problem with. You act like this "lower expectations" phenomenon somehow completely explains the massive underrepresentation of women in math-intensive fields such as engineering, while ignoring countless studies chronicling readily observable cognitive differences between the sexes starting at a very young age. "

FTW

It sounds to me like they found this trend for people to live up (or down) to expectations--not a new concept in social psychology--and they found evidence for it in their study. Then they took this and brushed the entire sexual difference in math and science aptitude with the same stroke. I didn't get into the REAL nitty gritty of it, but did they test to see how much of the difference is attributable to this or did they just assume it was most/all of it?

__
Anyone have a link to their paper/study or anything better than a review that doesn't cost $$



[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 8:39 AM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 8:37:01 AM

Quote :

"You act like this "lower expectations" phenomenon somehow completely explains the massive underrepresentation of women in math-intensive fields such as engineering"

Why can't it? Most people learn their values, beliefs, and identities from their society. The effects of socially-invented "facts" are quite powerful. You tell women they can't do math, they feel less able, they don't try as hard, they give up more easily. Then it's a self-fullfilling prophecy, their previous feelings are confirmed, they don't view math as important to them, they don't seek math-related jobs, they tell their daughters that girls aren't very good at math, etc...

Quote :

"Then they took this and brushed the entire sexual difference in math and science aptitude with the same stroke. I didn't get into the REAL nitty gritty of it, but did they test to see how much of the difference is attributable to this or did they just assume it was most/all of it?"

How are you supposed to test the mathematical aptitude difference in men and women before culture has an effect? Before someone tells a kid, "Boys are good at math and girls are good at English"?

10/24/2006 11:06:19 AM

^ Society also tells people to not engage in pre-marital sex, how's that working out?

There is no real way to judge how an individual will respond to social restraints. Some rebel, I guarantee there are girls out there swearing to prove their peers wrong on everything, including math.

Besides, people get good at things they enjoy doing. I grew up enjoying math and science, although my parents wanted me to be an athlete like my brother. I didn't enjoy running around like an idiot, irrespective of what others believed.

10/24/2006 12:43:01 PM

Quote :

"How are you supposed to test the mathematical aptitude difference in men and women before culture has an effect? "

I heard there was neuro-science that did just this. Left brain vs. right brain kind of stuff. I'm not into the science of the brain, but I think they can test for mental aptitude at very young ages.

And really, how much does society really tell girls this? All I can remember in school was "Girls are smarter than boys, so its a wonder you always beat the girls"

10/24/2006 12:49:40 PM

Quote :

"Society also tells people to not engage in pre-marital sex, how's that working out?"

That's not the same thing because 1) That's telling them how they should behave, not how they are and 2) By the time someone gets to sexual maturity, they listen to their peers more than those telling them not to have sex.

Quote :

"There is no real way to judge how an individual will respond to social restraints."

That's true.

Quote :

"And really, how much does society really tell girls this?"

Hard to say. It could be quite a bit, between literally telling them, encouraging them to different goals and behaviors, and by example (mother stays at home while dad is an accountant.)

10/24/2006 9:20:02 PM

True enough, but according to a Discovery channel documentary I watched awhile back on the relationship between the Brain and sex, this difference is detectable and massive in all testable ages, even shortly after the child learns to communicate. If they could devise a test utilizing subjects before the acquisition of speech, that would finally prove it. But until then, testing 3 year olds and getting the same results is very convincing.

10/24/2006 11:31:35 PM

The penis has genes for math and science processing. That's why blacks are the best at math and science.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 12:31 AM. Reason : sf]

10/25/2006 12:30:45 AM

I'm not saying there aren't differences (in fact, I would expect them due to natural selection); just saying that social influences carry a lot of the weight.

10/25/2006 12:31:31 AM

I could've sworn I've read this thread before

guess it's just me

10/25/2006 12:50:44 AM

Girls who are good at math and science don't fuck and have babies as much, so they are easily crowded out by their more attractive, fun peers.

10/25/2006 1:22:09 AM