This kind of testing does not really show who is better at anything as much as who studied more. In general the schools and the tests have to conform to a certain level: they are designed to teach an average individual an average set of skills.

To explain the error in the above methodology without going long and complicated I will use an analogy: let’s test who is better drivers – men or women.

We will test it by comparing driving records of a vast number of individuals who during their daily lives drive on average no faster than 60MPH. Under such circumstances women on average cause much less accidents, ergo they should be considered more gifted drivers. But they are not. Why?

Because all the above shows is that women are more careful and pay more attention under mediocre conditions. Let’s roll up to the driving records of the elite few who can handle a car properly under conditions with speeds of 250MPH. Suddenly things look entirely different.

Sure you can argue some elusive “social barriers”. But the truth is I would encounter the same barriers if trying to apply to be a Formula 1 driver. And the barriers are: I did not have enough motivation to become a race driver, I would probably suck at it, I had better things to do with my life and as far as the Formula 1 alone goes – I do not have a proven track record to back my choice.

There is a whole lot more to being good at something than just technical potential. 90% of it is an internal drive to do something. I claim a lot of it IS genetic. My family always wanted me to be a doctor. I was really good in biology/chemistry/etc too. However I ended up being an engineer – against the strong opposition of both my family and my pre-med biology teacher. Why? I just liked engineering more. Quite the same as some people like color green over color purple. There was not a single encouragement in my environment to become a computer scientist. But I did – it was just my calling against any and all opposition. Could I be a good doctor? Quite probably.

But somewhere in there was a voice that told me I do not WANT to be a good doctor – I want to be a kick-ass computer whiz.

The truth is women are not better at math on the level that matters scientifically. Modern feminists see it a problem, because in their minds woman is worth something only if she is an exact copy of a guy.

The truth is most women do not WANT to be better in math because they have better things to do with their lives. Most lack the inclination, the passion and the excitement of crunching numbers and theorems to train their brains to become good mathematicians. You could probably force them in that direction for another plant-flagging event to once again prove that a girl can become a boy, but for what purpose?

It's not necessarily about girls becoming boys, but attempting to show that girls can perform at the same level, so they therefore deserve the same respect, attention and recognition as the boys. Modern feminists, I don't believe, base a woman's worth on how well she copies a man; but by having girls perform well in math, they can say that there is no frontier a woman can't cross.

The point of the study and article was more to state that women have the tools to achieve at math, it is simply cultural hinderances that prevent them from doing well, which could be part of the equation for some. There's no denying that many patriarchal societies see the education of females as a low priority, even sometimes as evil or entirely unnecessary. Women are kept from learning about some of the simplest technologies and sciences, since these are purely the provinces of men in certain cultures.

You've stated this situation EXCELLENTLY, paxterminus. I agree ten thousand million percent (how's that for math): the best predictor of achievement/talent/whatever is a measure of what the subject WANTS!

And what we "want" is unquestionably a hyper-complex mixture of the biological and the social.

I have been trying to explain a variation of this to feminists for years; they fully accept that men commit much more "evil" than women (and are happy to assign that to biology--testosterone), but they claim the fact that 99% of the great achievements of the world being the accomplishment of men is merely caused by socially enforced gender roles.

The totally obvious fact is that men are more prevalent at both ends of the spectrum because of testosterone: it's the hormone of WANTING and of DRIVE. Testosterone drives desire into action--whether that desire is "bad or good."

hellcat,

All people deserve to be treated with respect--regardless of test scores! That women seem to feel that they can be worthy of respect only if their AVERAGE test scores equal the average test scores of men only speaks of their OWN problems of self-esteem and self-effacement (which DO tend, I believe, to be more likely found in girls than boys).

Paradoxically, all people should be treated the same because all people are DIFFERENT! We are individuals, not average representatives of a group. All people should be treated with respect for the simple reason that it's pretty much impossible to know what's really inside someone's head (and thus it's impossible to accurately judge them). Judging people by the "averages" of their group is nothing other than prejudice.

Two of my favorite youtube videos are of young geniuses at the piano:

This is George Cziffra at 13 years old playing Schubert. He's very good, surely, but most interesting is his absolute determination. As an adult he was surely among the top ten best people in history to approach a piano.

This is Aimi Kobayashi at 12 years old (recent) playing Chopin. She is BETTER than Cziffra, no doubt. But will she be one of the greatest pianists ever? Whether or not she will be is strictly a measure of her drive--and nothing else.

I contrast these to show that great ability is one thing....but Cziffra's amazing drive and intensity, IMO, is what took him to the pinnacle.

paxterminus:

The truth is women are not better at math on the level that matters scientifically....The truth is most women do not WANT to be better in math because they have better things to do with their lives.

You've illustrated the problem that women face beautifully. "Oh, you can't be a great mathematician. Oh, there are better things for you to do. Why bother since there is no chance you can be the best?" You've basically used circular logic. Math is one of those subjects that requires an early start and concentration. If we discourage young girls from it at a young age, it should be a surprise that as young adults they've already decided not to do it. How many women have become mediocre doctors when they could've been great engineers because they've been discouraged from it? Men simply don't face this sort of discouragement in this subject.

For instance, how many movies show a woman scientist who is extremely capable, not a dorky social pariah and doesn't get shown up by her "smarter" love interest? The only one I can think of is Contact.

paxterminus:

Modern feminists see it a problem, because in their minds woman is worth something only if she is an exact copy of a guy.

No. Modern feminists see this as a problem because girls are being discouraged from some things, and boys are being discouraged from others strictly based on gender. This limits the choices a person can make. If you discover your love of math at 20, you're never going to have the chance to be "great".

PhysicsGirl,

The very real and rather unpleasant flip side of that is that many girls now are being HEAVILY ENCOURAGED to try to like things that they really DON'T like (i.e., as paxterminus said, they're being encouraged to be boys).

This is true also: If girls in fact DO have less interest/ability in math (on average) than boys, but they're constantly told that they SHOULD be interested--they you're making a lot of girls feel substandard because they're not as interested or as good in something as they're told they SHOULD be.

I agree with you that kids don't need negative messages that they can't do something before they even try; but they also don't need PRESSURE to like or be good at something they aren't.

I went to school in the sixties. I don't recall EVER getting a notion at that time that "boys were better at math than girls." We were all in the same class, we all did the same work, some kids were smarter than others--of both genders. The teachers seemed to fully expect EVERY student to be "the best." (well, girls took home economics and boys took shop--but I at least never interpreted that as one gender being superior to another--although it was clearly promoting stereotypical gender roles). I'm not sure where all these people are who are reportedly telling girls they can't measure up.

Rock on PhysicsGirl!

Also, to those who argue that women lack some innate mathematical ability that men posses, I find it interesting that shortly after western society began to entertain the idea of intellectual equality amongst the genders, women such as Ingrid Daubechies popped up.

StevieN:

I went to school in the sixties. I don't recall EVER getting a notion at that time that "boys were better at math than girls."

Well, you're a boy not a girl. You might not have noticed.... I went to K-12 in the 80s and 90s and the idea that women weren't as good at math and science definately was there. I believe it is still there. For instance, if you asked a group of first graders to draw a picture of a scientist, an extremely high percentage would draw a picture of a man.

StevieN:

We were all in the same class, we all did the same work, some kids were smarter than others--of both genders.

Well either things backtracked between the 60s and the 90s, or you were oblivious. Of course, I'm not surprised that a young boy wouldn't catch what was going on. Since I was raised in a pretty gender neutral family, I clearly remember the first time I encountered people who believed that girls weren't as good as boys at some things.

Heck, they released a Barbie that said, "Math is hard...." about the time I was in grade school.

StevieN:

(well, girls took home economics and boys took shop--

Oh, but of course this wasn't a gender issue. After all, no girl would want to learn how to weld, solder or construct anythign.

StevieN:

but I at least never interpreted that as one gender being superior to another--

Well of course, you were learning the skills that people paid money for.....

StevieN:

I'm not sure where all these people are who are reportedly telling girls they can't measure up.

They're there. They've always been there. For instance, I had a professor tell me that women shouldn't go into physics because we use up funding that could otherwise be spent on men who were simply better phycicists. One of my fellow grad students said that when he was an undergrad in Harvard, all the women who weren't at the absolute top of his class were discouraged from going into physics. Yet none of the men in that situation were.

I know too many women who are as good at the sciences and math as men (and I've read too many historical accounts such as the biographies of Noether and Meitner) to believe that men are inherently better at science and math than women, even past the three sigma point on the bell curve. But as a girl who had done "male" things and as a person who is friends with a lot of girls who have done "male" things, I can assure you that the discrimination against women is certainly there. No one walks up and says, "Why don't you make the coffee since you're a woman....." but you certainly get the, "Well, if women aren't going to be as good as men at science, does it make sense for them to be grad students?" type of comments.

Your responses read MOSTLY as "you know differently than I know." That's justified to some extent since my claim is based on ignorance--I claim to be ignorant of things you are aware of.

My MAIN argument with this ENTIRE ISSUE is that anyone who doesn't understand that the individual is not the "average" is already quite DANGEROUSLY stupid. And that leads into the idea that anyone who BELIEVES it when they're told that "woman aren't good at physics" probably themselves would NOT BE GOOD AT PHYSICS (please don't think I'm mean to imply that about you, PhyscisGirl).

It's that that gets me going on these topics in the first place: the IRRATIONAL FEAR of hearing that men may test "2% higher than women." To me, people's emotional responses to such measurements implies that their minds work in terms of PREJUDICE--no matter how enthusiastically they deny it.

We could do FAR MORE for boys, girls, everyone, by helping them understand that people are INDIVIDUALS--and any value they have can only be measured as an individual (since the "they" I'm referring to is, in fact, an individual)--than by trying to enforce some sort of "happy speak" into the language that helps people pretend that averages CANNOT be different between different, arbitrary, groups.

These discussions make me think that prejudice is DEEPLY rooted in human behavior--and as deeply rooted in those who undergo paroxysms of denial at any measurable "average" difference found between the genders as those who would claim that "women can't do math."