Live data from Hacker News

Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher

wsj.com

151–160 of 194 posts

Re: Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher

#151
post #21

I'm a man and I really dislike competitive aspects of society. I mean if I'm playing a game and it's for fun, I'm okay with it, as long as everyone play to play, not play to win. If I'm literally competing to earn a living, or if it ends up in praising winners and blaming losers, it won't be enjoyable, and I'd rather not play at all. Having humility also means that when you win, you also congratulate losers for playi…

Like or dislike, you would be the first to die in 99% of societies, human or otherwise. This may get downvoted but don't shoot the messenger. You can't "hate" something that just "is".

Smallpox just was. We fucking conquered it.

Malaria just is. And luckily, some people will not settle.

Re: Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher

#152

Protip: some of us can significantly increase our own throughput if we frame tasks like competitions. I'll add a warning about not overdoing this, as someone who has previously burned out before I am careful not to trick myself too often. Edit: at least -> out

And some of us do worse! Everybody overlooks the other statistic from this experiment: the girls' scores dropped as much as the boys rose, when playing the 'game'. I'd be more worried about that. Its not about reading, folks.

Sounds like a point in favor of going back to gender segegated schools. Let the girls cooperate, and the boys compete, and theoretically everyone will end off better for it.

Re: Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher

#153
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like or dislike, you would be the first to die in 99% of societies, human or otherwise. This may get downvoted but don't shoot the messenger. You can't "hate" something that just "is".

So does that mean I'm part of the 1%? Because I'm an unemployed man on welfare.

His point was there should be a threshold level of competitiveness to survive in the world, and you based on your posts probably fall below that (made-up) threshold.

I agree partially here. People who show greatest reluctance also sometimes compete crazy for the right kind of reward or circumstance.

Humans or for that part, animals that are social, have a very interesting compete-cooperate dynamic. The compete part also is how we choose our leaders, in cooperate team/group.

Re: Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you think science would be better off just memory-holing results that you don't want to know about, is that right?

That's the problem - science already memory-holes results that don't fit the authors' view of reality.

I don't even know how you think that's related to this topic.

Re: Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher

#155
Boys likes games and I believe boys are naturally competitive. Tell any boy something is a game, or a competition, and they will treat it as such. It has nothing to do with race, society, culture, or social upbringing. It's as close to human nature as one can get.

Re: Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher

#156
post #94

This is completely anecdotal, but when I was back in the Middle East, tests essentially were games/competitions. Everyone knew everyone else's scores and they were often announced out loud as the results are handed back. Students who consistently get high scores are looked up to and respected. Your academic performance contributed significantly to your social standing in the classroom. Then I came to Canada and this…

[deleted]

Re: Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher

#157
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that "nerd" is pejorative is linked to the way grades aren't read aloud. The "nerd" pejorative isn't about doing well academically, it's more about bragging and obsessing. It's about making academic performance part of your identity. That's what people think is uncool. It's not like the quarterback loses points if he happens to be smart. He just shouldn't flaunt it or obsess about it.

Hm Im an American (and a Nerd) and that doesn't sound at all right to me. The N word is used to denigrate anyone who does well academically. Its used to shore up self-image for those that don't do well I imagine - "Sure Joe is great at this subject but that's Nerdy so Ha! I'm superior to him" There was never any need to brag, to be called a Nerd. Just score well, and the bullies would whisper (and yell in the hall) N…

That might have been true 10,20 years ago. Don't know about now

Re: Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher

#158

It not only seems that boys do better when told it's a game, girls do worse when told it's a game.

It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. The vast majority of men across history died without fathering any children. Doing so was a very real competition to secure power and women and defend what you had from the marauders. Our ancient ancestors were the ones that won these competitions; the ones that lost either died in combat or died as celibate servants to the more powerful men. So even though monogamy and modern society in general has changed the rules somewhat, the instinct is still deeply ingrained in most of us.

Women of course competed with each other for the attention of the most powerful men, but when you think about it from an evolutionary perspective, ultimately all that mattered was that they and their children were cared for and protected. Even in the absolute worst case scenario, your tribe being conquered and all of your men slaughtered, you would most likely be taken as a wife or concubine by the conquerors and life would for the most part continue on as usual after some time. So it isn't surprising that women would be predisposed towards cooperation. Raising children means that you get far more from being able to get along with your tribe and integrate peacefully into a new one if need be, than "winning" any single small victory. And in turn, women that were obsessed with small victories were more likely to piss their tribe off and find themselves ostracized or exiled.

This explains the difference in male and female bullying behaviors as well. Boys publicly display dominance because it confers status. Girls do it far more subtly, in private, so that they can put other girls down without breaking the veneer of social harmony or changing the way others perceive them.

Re: Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher

#159
post #9

"The latest study, in France, involved 80 children, 48 boys and 30 girls" What do i win for spotting errors?

Two who declined to reveal their gender? Two intersex children? Hmm, yeah, seems unlikely! Email the editor, or there may be an errata email address.

There's bound to be a dodgy joke about significant figures in there...

Re: Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Boys have about 14 to 17 times the amount of serum testosterone as girls and that does affect their felt incentives for things like competition. Culture can mute this but at great cost to boy's and men's health. The idea that gender is separate from biological sex is very recent. When you examine its origin you find that it comes from Foucault and Judith Butler. Both were gay. It's unsurprising to me that…

Your second paragraph seems to be suggesting that Foucault and Butler's idea is wrong because of their sexual orientation. This seems both unjust and irrational. If you believe the distinction has no scientific merit, you could cite or propose relevant studies. If you believe it has no cultural merit, you could discuss how the distinction functions in society.

I don't see where GP claims that the idea is wrong: they're simply pointing out that it's a relatively recent distinction, which implies (reasonably, IMHO) that we likely don't understand it very well yet, or that it may ultimately not be a meaningful distinction to draw once we better understand the underlying mechanisms.

Perhaps near-future advances in genetics and neurology will expand our definition of biological sex to explain gender identity. In that case, our current sex vs. gender distinction would simply be another way of saying "we don't understand how this works yet". There's a lot of this "transitional stuff" in science history, where we have credible anecdotal evidence that our previous understanding is wrong but don't yet know how to coherently explain it. (See: Greek attempts to explain the nature of matter; the infamous cholera map by John Snow; etc.)

That doesn't make the "transitional stuff" wrong: an idea doesn't have to have solid theoretical underpinnings to have merit. It does, however, mean we should continue searching for an explanation.

Post reply on HN