Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

education.guardian.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

#21

Post by gaius »

mynameishere wrote: post #12
tx wrote: post #7

Why is it even worth discussing? Or even worth discovering? Why do we always break ourselves down (by age, gender, education, whatever) into groups and bump them into each other?

Why do we always break ourselves down Identity politics. Follow the money. If you can get a person in authority to declare, "We are all equal, given 'fair' conditions," then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2. Men and women make different incomes. 3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly. 4. Corrective action is needed. Thi…

That is mere statistical manipulation. Here in the UK, we have a "Minister for Women", Harriet Harman. She compares the hourly rate paid to full-time male workers to the hourly rate compared to part-time female workers in her statistics to conclude that women are worse off, which in turn she uses to justify advocating quotas etc. The Guardian's politics are very similar.

Re: Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

#22

Post by jrockway »

tungstenfurnace wrote: post #11
tx wrote: post #7

Why is it even worth discussing? Or even worth discovering? Why do we always break ourselves down (by age, gender, education, whatever) into groups and bump them into each other?

Exactly. Why is it important whether boys or girls or Chinese or gay people are better at maths? Why are scarce research funds going into this? Questions I would be more interesting in: how can elementary maths be made more interesting? And how can we save children who aren't interested in maths from having it forced upon them?

I would rather find the answer to the question, "How can we make it more interesting for them."

Regardless of whether or not mathematics interests you, it's a vital skill like reading. I don't really like "reading"* per se, but I still need to do it anyway.

* s/reading/analysis of fiction/

Re: Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

#23

Post by yummyfajitas »

mynameishere wrote: post #19
tx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2. Men and women make different incomes. 3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly. But the thing is - you can't. Our approach to statistical drug studies is more careful and mathematically sound than studies about our own identities. There isn't enough evidence in #1 and #2 to jump to #…

Err, the logic is sound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens That's not the point. In politics, if you can trick people into believe rubbish X causes trash Y which leads to bullshit Z and make money off it, then that's what you do. Generally, it's best to have a semi-reasonable argument. In the case above, the flaw is in the statement "Men and women are equal", which is obviously not the case. (Nothing is equal…

There is a moral statement to be made about sexual equality, but it is not the same statement that is made about income or intelligence. Various political groups find it useful to conflate the following types of equality:

1. Equality under the law/Equal rights as humans -- the law should treat men and women equally. "It is wrong to punish men more severely for crimes than women."

2. "Societal" equality -- the attitudes and viewpoints of mainstream society should consider men and women to be equal. "It is wrong to believe that women should have children."

3. Statistical equality -- men and women must be statistically identical for a politically useful class of statistics (e.g., intelligence). "Anyone who speculates that women are not as smart as/have different variance/etc is a sexist."

4. Equality of outcome -- men and women should achieve the same outcomes, for a politically useful class of endeavors. "Professors in every field should be 50% male, 50% female."

#1 and #2 are moral questions, #3 is a scientific one. #4 is a consequence of #1,#2 and #3. The moral statements are hardly rubbish, they are perfectly legitimate moral claims (I even agree with #1). The bullshit is trying to claim that 1 == 2 == 3 == 4.

Re: Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

#24

Post by d0mine »

Such articles are always misleading.

  There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain
If you are interested in such questions just read the original research: PISA 2003 http://is.gd/Si0

Full report in English: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf

Re: Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

#25

Post by ivankirigin »

mlinsey wrote: post #18
ivankirigin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conversation is usually about the higher end. Higher variance would also lead to a greater number of math underachievers. I'm pretty sure the numbers play this out, but I think lower bounds on achievement tend to be heavily skewed by 'nurture'. Also, this assumes a symmetric curve. This highlights the gross over simplifications even a more advanced model suffers from. We're modeling brains here, after all, with o…

Everything you said here is true but I'm not sure what it has to do with what I said. You are focusing on the highest end of the curve, presumably because that's where things like advancements in math (and the status it brings) lie. I'm saying that even if you leave aside the entire discussion about a possible gender gap at the ends of the spectrum, there were other people who were suggesting that the gender gap in m…

If you want ammunition against those claims, you should go back to math, not these studies: all claims show the gap to be small and the mean to be very close.

Most importantly he variance between groups is smaller than between individuals. This means that you have no way of knowing when you meet someone whether they are good at math because of their sex. That's the most important lesson for most people: don't be biased, because you're probably wrong.

The same argument applies to the race/IQ discussion. Variance between groups is smaller than between individuals.

So even if the claims of innate superiority are correct, you should treat individuals with respect.

Re: Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

#26

Post by [deleted] »

jrockway wrote: post #22
tungstenfurnace wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Why is it important whether boys or girls or Chinese or gay people are better at maths? Why are scarce research funds going into this? Questions I would be more interesting in: how can elementary maths be made more interesting? And how can we save children who aren't interested in maths from having it forced upon them?

I would rather find the answer to the question, "How can we make it more interesting for them." Regardless of whether or not mathematics interests you, it's a vital skill like reading. I don't really like "reading"* per se, but I still need to do it anyway. * s/reading/analysis of fiction/

[deleted]

Re: Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

#27

Post by tungstenfurnace »

jrockway wrote: post #22
tungstenfurnace wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Why is it important whether boys or girls or Chinese or gay people are better at maths? Why are scarce research funds going into this? Questions I would be more interesting in: how can elementary maths be made more interesting? And how can we save children who aren't interested in maths from having it forced upon them?

I would rather find the answer to the question, "How can we make it more interesting for them." Regardless of whether or not mathematics interests you, it's a vital skill like reading. I don't really like "reading"* per se, but I still need to do it anyway. * s/reading/analysis of fiction/

If a skill is truly vital then I will _want_ to learn it, sooner or later, whatever my present interests are.

So there's no need for 'needs' to overrule 'wants'. (And in particular no need for thousands of people to be paid to deem what children's needs supposedly are.)

For example, if I'm interested in a sport then eventually I'll want to learn elementary arithmetic to keep track of scores and the league tables.

If my favourite thing is fantasy computer games I'll eventually want to read the names of other characters, etc.

The new knowledge in both cases will enhance my love of the activity and I will not regard it as a sacrifice to learn it.

Post reply on HN