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

11–20 of 27 posts

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

#11

Post by tungstenfurnace »

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?

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

#12

Post by mynameishere »

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.
This is a standard move in identity politics, and you will see it whenever two groups are different. Different people = different outcomes. But the vast bulk of people, including scientists, have been trained from birth to say, "All men [sic] are created equal".

Once you decide that society isn't treating a group fairly, it is time to correct that. How? Affirmative action, set-asides, diversity training, repairations, etc.

What's in store:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWY...

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

#13

Post by greendestiny »

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?

Breaking things into groups allows for contrast, and to discover patterns. Instead of a program which might allow a small proportion of students to better at maths (with better teaching perhaps), this could lead to an improvement in the mathematical ability of 50% of the population. That has huge economic and societal implications.

The worst thing about breaking things into groups is members of groups other than the target seem to be simply blind to the importance of it.

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

#14

Post by tx »

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…

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 #3, and normally outside of sensitive politics absurd like that simply goes ignored, kinda like child speak.

Lemme offer you similarly absurd statement:

Men and women are equal, yet men don't live as long as women do. Therefore, men's quality of life is lower and they are discriminated against.

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

#15

Post by tx »

greendestiny wrote: post #13
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?

Breaking things into groups allows for contrast, and to discover patterns. Instead of a program which might allow a small proportion of students to better at maths (with better teaching perhaps), this could lead to an improvement in the mathematical ability of 50% of the population. That has huge economic and societal implications. The worst thing about breaking things into groups is members of groups other than the…

It doesn't work. It's enormously difficult to construct a solid study with one properly isolated variable that's the subject in question. Even much, much, much easier tasks as exploring effects of smoking have been done over and over again, only to be declared invalid by yet another variable not accounted for. Statistics is hard to get right, this is why there are so many jokes about it. And trying to come up with a "proof" of anything by separating everybody into just two groups is idiotic.

Yes, it makes one feel good about oneself, and can score you some votes if you're a politician, but it's a waste of time - it doesn't prove anything and only reminds blacks and women that they're "in a group", i.e. must be different by some criteria. This is what I call "recursive racism/sexism".

It is not OK to say "first black president is a great achievement of America". The real achievement would have happened if nobody even noticed the color of his skin, you never heard of CNN anchormen talking about Bush's eye color, haven't you?

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

#16

Post by mlinsey »

ivankirigin wrote: post #5

The problem here is mean vs variance. The biggest performers in math and science are going to be at least a few standard deviations away from the mean. Identical mean and slightly higher variance in men would significantly contribute to the ratios we see today. Either way, the goal shouldn't be to make everyone feel good about innate abilities. The goal should be to find the reason why one person is innately better t…

Sure, variance is another question (and one not addressed either way by linked article), but there were some folks in the other thread arguing that maybe men are evolutionarily predisposed to be better at math than women. If that were true, you would expect to see differences in the mean and not just the variance.

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

#17

Post by ivankirigin »

mlinsey wrote: post #16
ivankirigin wrote: post #5

The problem here is mean vs variance. The biggest performers in math and science are going to be at least a few standard deviations away from the mean. Identical mean and slightly higher variance in men would significantly contribute to the ratios we see today. Either way, the goal shouldn't be to make everyone feel good about innate abilities. The goal should be to find the reason why one person is innately better t…

Sure, variance is another question (and one not addressed either way by linked article), but there were some folks in the other thread arguing that maybe men are evolutionarily predisposed to be better at math than women. If that were true, you would expect to see differences in the mean and not just the variance.

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 one or two numbers.

But you are technically incorrect. You can see more of a certain group in the high end if there is higher variance with equal mean.

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

#18

Post by mlinsey »

ivankirigin wrote: post #17
mlinsey wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, variance is another question (and one not addressed either way by linked article), but there were some folks in the other thread arguing that maybe men are evolutionarily predisposed to be better at math than women. If that were true, you would expect to see differences in the mean and not just the variance.

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 mathematical ability might be just like the gender gap in physical strength. This study seems to indicate that this isn't the case, therefore it's a valuable part of the discussion.

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

#19

Post by mynameishere »

tx wrote: post #14
mynameishere wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 to anything, except in pure mathematics.)

Really, saying "men and women are equal" is a moral statement, with built-in failure, like the commands in the sermon on the mount. This leads to built-in transgression. Which leads to guilt. Which leads to submission. And so on.

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

#20

Post by greendestiny »

tx wrote: post #15
greendestiny wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breaking things into groups allows for contrast, and to discover patterns. Instead of a program which might allow a small proportion of students to better at maths (with better teaching perhaps), this could lead to an improvement in the mathematical ability of 50% of the population. That has huge economic and societal implications. The worst thing about breaking things into groups is members of groups other than the…

It doesn't work. It's enormously difficult to construct a solid study with one properly isolated variable that's the subject in question. Even much, much, much easier tasks as exploring effects of smoking have been done over and over again, only to be declared invalid by yet another variable not accounted for. Statistics is hard to get right, this is why there are so many jokes about it. And trying to come up with a…

That's why the study broke it into two groups and then compared across many different countries (also groups). When what you are studying is the difference in cultures then it seems its impossible to isolate a variable like its a simple drug you're introducing.
Post reply on HN