Current Events > No intrinsic gender differences in children's mathematical abilities

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0028-7

All open so you can look at the actual article itself.
---

its the patriarchy at fault because women arent in stem
---

That's a lie.
---

all writers are women

can I get a non biased study
---

CreekCo posted...

Quality signature-post agreement.
---

I believe it. I'm a stem major myself and have seen it plenty firsthand. lots of women are mathematical geniuses
---

i wouldn't imagine children's mathematics push children to any kinds of cognitive extremes
---

TheMikh posted...

i wouldn't imagine children's mathematics push children to any kinds of cognitive extremes

This argument would require children to be a ceiling in all their measurements. They are not, as can be seen in the many drawn distributions.
---

foreveraIone posted...

its the patriarchy at fault because women arent in stem

It is, though.

And if you don't think male centrism isn't a huge problem in STEM, just spend a day in my shoes.

Wash your feet first though.
---

COVxy posted...

CreekCo posted...

Quality signature-post agreement.

Over half the data was comparing 6 month olds. Did you even understand what you posted? None of the data had a sample size larger than a thousand but the same article criticized early studies for low sample size. Yeah, I'm gonna base some real world decisions based on about a couple of dozen 4 year olds and their ability to count. Most of us were still eating crayons at that age.
---

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

Why would someone's gender determine their math ability? Or sex for that matter? I'm not sure a study was necessary.

Blame societal stereotypes and bias for the necessity of the study.

(Though, in general, sex/gender differences are important to investigate for various reasons)
---

CreekCo posted...

COVxy posted...

CreekCo posted...

Quality signature-post agreement.

Over half the data was comparing 6 month olds. Did you even understand what you posted? None of the data had a sample size larger than a thousand but the same article criticized early studies for low sample size. Yeah, I'm gonna base some real world decisions based on about a couple of dozen 4 year olds and their ability to count. Most of us were still eating crayons at that age.

Look at who TC is...
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

foreveraIone posted...

its the patriarchy at fault because women arent in stem

It is, though.

And if you don't think male centrism isn't a huge problem in STEM, just spend a day in my shoes.

Wash your feet first though.

i said that unironically
---

thelovefist posted...

CreekCo posted...

COVxy posted...

CreekCo posted...

Quality signature-post agreement.

Over half the data was comparing 6 month olds. Did you even understand what you posted? None of the data had a sample size larger than a thousand but the same article criticized early studies for low sample size. Yeah, I'm gonna base some real world decisions based on about a couple of dozen 4 year olds and their ability to count. Most of us were still eating crayons at that age.

Look at who TC is...

Yeah, you're right.
---

The smartest people are almost always men based on the variability of men compared to women having both an x and a y chromosome allowing for more mutations. That bit is scientific fact.

However its not politically correct to state that it actually looks like men are smarter then women on average too. You really have to dig to find good information on this however because many studies on this do silly things like test children. Boys and girls are much more alike then adult men women. Men mature in their intelligence later than women. Also men have larger brains then women even accounting for body size. As far as I can tell men and women are equally smart as children, men get smarter than women after puberty. That said you are still more likely to run into more idiot men then women because of the variability I mentioned above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YruxhWO8QSY" data-time="
---

CreekCo posted...

Did you even understand what you posted?

Yes, do you?

CreekCo posted...

None of the data had a sample size larger than a thousand but the same article criticized early studies for low sample size.

Why did you pick that number out of a hat? 500 subjects is going to be extremely well powered to detect even minute group differences.
---

The smartest people are almost always men based on the variability of men compared to women having both an x and a y chromosome allowing for more mutations. That bit is scientific fact.

You realize the Y chromosome is the smallest chromosome with by far the least number of genes, right?

"Allowing for more mutations" is wrong on so many fundamental levels that I'm not even sure you're capable of understanding why.

The reason men are prone to a lot of genetic defects is because they only have one copy of X chromosome, which makes every gene on X autosomal dominant.
---

COVxy posted...

CreekCo posted...

Did you even understand what you posted?

Yes, do you?

CreekCo posted...

None of the data had a sample size larger than a thousand but the same article criticized early studies for low sample size.

Why did you pick that number out of a hat? 500 subjects is going to be extremely well powered to detect even minute group differences.

The main graph given has a n-value of like 241. That's not even half of that.
---

CreekCo posted...

The main graph given has a n-value of like 241. That's not even half of that.

The collected data from 500 children in total, though various analyses have differing numbers of subjects.

Regardless, each individual analysis here is actually really well powered. Your complaint about sample size is entirely unfounded and improper.
---

What if women don't get into Stem simply because they dont want to? Just because you are good at something doesn't mean you enjoy it or want to do it for a living.
---

PoopPotato posted...

What if women don't get into Stem simply because they dont want to? Just because you are good at something doesn't mean you enjoy it or want to do it for a living.

We don't want to because Incel garbage fills the ranks and makes it excruciating for women.
---

COVxy posted...

CreekCo posted...

The main graph given has a n-value of like 241. That's not even half of that.

The collected data from 500 children in total, though various analyses have differing numbers of subjects.

Regardless, each individual analysis here is actually really well powered. Your complaint about sample size is entirely unfounded and improper.

Yeah, it's maybe 500 if you add together all the data they borrowed from other people's work. There's n-values in the single digits for their work. Single digits. The headline you posted was based on a study of 241 kids and a lot of them were 4 year olds. This is no basis for any definitive conclusion other than they were all ready for snacktime after the survey. Everybody hurried up to finish so they could eat their snacks for completing the survey and watch Peppa Pig, lol.
---

Just from personal observation, not sure if legit, men seem to reach the extremes of intellegence more often than women do. Extemely dumb, and extremely smart. Women tend to be more stable.
---

Reminds me of how Mozart's sister was considered to be even more of a prodigy than her brother, but was forced to give up music upon marriage.
---

Renault posted...

all writers are women

can I get a non biased study

how can anything created by humans be unbiased
---

CreekCo posted...

COVxy posted...

CreekCo posted...

The main graph given has a n-value of like 241. That's not even half of that.

The collected data from 500 children in total, though various analyses have differing numbers of subjects.

Regardless, each individual analysis here is actually really well powered. Your complaint about sample size is entirely unfounded and improper.

Yeah, it's maybe 500 if you add together all the data they borrowed from other people's work. There's n-values in the single digits for their work. Single digits. The headline you posted was based on a study of 241 kids and a lot of them were 4 year olds. This is no basis for any definitive conclusion other than they were all ready for snacktime after the survey. Everybody hurried up to finish so they could eat their snacks for completing the survey and watch Peppa Pig, lol.

Again, the sample sizes here are all appropriate, and you have done nothing to counter their argumentation:

The absence of statistical differences across the major developmental milestones of early mathematical cognition are unlikely to be due to sample size. Power analyses suggest that given the sizes of the samples analyzed here, we should have been able to detect small to medium effect sizes ranging from Cohens d = 0.34 to 0.65 (80% power, p = 0.05; Infant Numerosity Comparison (looking time): d = 0.65; Early Childhood Numerosity Comparison (w): d = 0.37; Recitation of Count List (How High? task): d = 0.47; Counting Principles (Give-N task): d = 0.52; Math Concepts (TEMA): d = 0.34, (Formal/Informal Math Scores): d = 0.40). Importantly, even if smaller effects do exist, they are unlikely to reliably, meaningfully, or consistently manifest in children. Caution should be taken when interpreting any small effects in large sample to ensure that their importance is not over-exaggerated.[13,75]

They are well within power to detect any effects that would matter. And their power analyses seem to be overly conservative (they seem to be on the basis of a two tailed test, when really they should be looking for a one tailed effect).

And then the only other thing you have to offer is rambling about Peppa The Pig.
---

TheMikh posted...

i wouldn't imagine children's mathematics push children to any kinds of cognitive extremes

---

Serious question, do we see natural discrepancies in certain abilities develop over time between genders, or is it impossible to isolate "intrinsic" discrepancies from those influenced heavily by environment?

Going to have to 2nd that the level of math given at such a young age doesn't really count.

You're in academics TC. Have you not noticed the further and further you go, the less that people are able to cut it?

I remember in 2nd grade, like a third of us were considered gifted. Then middle school rolled around and a fraction of those thirds went to honors classes and many only honors in one or two. Then high school came around, then only a fraction of that fraction made it to APs. Then for me, engineering school, and you see giant differences on test scores like you never see in high school.

tl;Dr It's easy to have equal performance when the test is easy

That said, I don't think men are necessarily better. I know a lot of smart girls. A few who got perfect SATs and destroy the majority of guys. I just don't think the study really proves anything.
---

PoopPotato posted...

What if women don't get into Stem simply because they dont want to? Just because you are good at something doesn't mean you enjoy it or want to do it for a living.

Women don't go into stem primarily because most women are more interested in people over things so you're right on that. However it is also true that they are out performed by men in STEM.

Then again factually speaking men outperform women in literally everything. I found it pretty funny when I found out that in a profession that is 91% female, Nursing, men were responsible for like 30% to 40% of nursing literature.
---

Squall28 posted...

I just don't think the study really proves anything.

That's because it doesn't. Again, look at who TC is...
---

Squall28 posted...

tl;Dr It's easy to have equal performance when the test is easy

There's no evidence here that the tests were "easy".

Dragonblade01 posted...

Serious question, do we see natural discrepancies in certain abilities develop over time between genders, or is it impossible to isolate "intrinsic" discrepancies from those influenced heavily by environment?

I think the wording "intrinsic" is too strong in their title.
---

COVxy posted...

CreekCo posted...

COVxy posted...

CreekCo posted...

The main graph given has a n-value of like 241. That's not even half of that.

The collected data from 500 children in total, though various analyses have differing numbers of subjects.

Regardless, each individual analysis here is actually really well powered. Your complaint about sample size is entirely unfounded and improper.

Yeah, it's maybe 500 if you add together all the data they borrowed from other people's work. There's n-values in the single digits for their work. Single digits. The headline you posted was based on a study of 241 kids and a lot of them were 4 year olds. This is no basis for any definitive conclusion other than they were all ready for snacktime after the survey. Everybody hurried up to finish so they could eat their snacks for completing the survey and watch Peppa Pig, lol.

Again, the sample sizes here are all appropriate, and you have done nothing to counter their argumentation:

The absence of statistical differences across the major developmental milestones of early mathematical cognition are unlikely to be due to sample size. Power analyses suggest that given the sizes of the samples analyzed here, we should have been able to detect small to medium effect sizes ranging from Cohens d = 0.34 to 0.65 (80% power, p = 0.05; Infant Numerosity Comparison (looking time): d = 0.65; Early Childhood Numerosity Comparison (w): d = 0.37; Recitation of Count List (How High? task): d = 0.47; Counting Principles (Give-N task): d = 0.52; Math Concepts (TEMA): d = 0.34, (Formal/Informal Math Scores): d = 0.40). Importantly, even if smaller effects do exist, they are unlikely to reliably, meaningfully, or consistently manifest in children. Caution should be taken when interpreting any small effects in large sample to ensure that their importance is not over-exaggerated.[13,75]

They are well within power to detect any effects that would matter. And their power analyses seem to be overly conservative (they seem to be on the basis of a two tailed test, when really they should be looking for a one tailed effect).

And then the only other thing you have to offer is rambling about Peppa The Pig.

By that logic, they could sample 10 kids and it be valid. Uh, no. Just because someone says something don't make it true. You look at the numbers they give and there is clearly a difference in even the very first graph they show on their survey. Statistics can be used to twist numbers into saying whatever and this is a really clear case of that. Larger sample sizes tend to be viewed as more valid for a reason. That one of the first things you learn in statistics -- saying otherwise is insanely irresponsible.
---

CreekCo posted...

By that logic, they could sample 10 kids and it be valid

No, no they couldn't.
---

COVxy posted...

There's no evidence here that the tests were "easy".

One test was choose the side with more dots. Another test was count as high as you can.

Look I'm not sold on the idea that men are innately better than science than women, but this study tells very little.
---

Squall28 posted...

One test was choose the side with more dots. Another test was count as high as you can.

And these were really young children.

For what you say to be an actual reason for the null effects, you'd see it in the data. The data would be pushing up against the upper bound (statisticese: at ceiling). The data show that these tests discriminate between children.
---

---

Honestly didn't expect people to be this bent out of shape about this lol.
---

COVxy posted...

Honestly didn't expect people to be this bent out of shape about this lol.

I don't even see why it's a big deal. Lol.

Base intelligence isn't even the biggest factor. A prodigy with no drive will be outdone by a layman who commits 20 hours a day to improving.
---

COVxy posted...

Squall28 posted...

One test was choose the side with more dots. Another test was count as high as you can.

And these were really young children.

For what you say to be an actual reason for the null effects, you'd see it in the data. The data would be pushing up against the upper bound (statisticese: at ceiling). The data show that these tests discriminate between children. The only one which is really questionable is the Weber fraction at older ages.

I'm having trouble finding the actual standard deviation for each data set, but based on the errors and gray areas on the graphs, the variance is low so the tests don't really discriminate between children.
---

COVxy posted...

Honestly didn't expect people to be this bent out of shape about this lol.

"I don't like people disagreeing with me"
---

BignutzisBack posted...

COVxy posted...

Honestly didn't expect people to be this bent out of shape about this lol.

"I don't like people disagreeing with me"

Has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. Has everything to do with irrationally arguing agaisnt data with no real basis.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Reminds me of how Mozart's sister was considered to be even more of a prodigy than her brother, but was forced to give up music upon marriage.

This is core of the issue.
We've had several millennia of expecting men to specialize to make money, while expecting women to generalize to make households.

Squall28 posted...

I'm having trouble finding the actual standard deviation for each data set, but based on the errors and gray areas on the graphs, the variance is low so the tests don't really discriminate between children.

In comparison to what, exactly?

In only a couple plots does a ceiling problem even rear its head a little, and even within those analyses it doesn't seem like an issue since if you mentally split the data prior to when kids are hitting ceiling, there are still no apparent gender differences.
---

COVxy posted...

Squall28 posted...

I'm having trouble finding the actual standard deviation for each data set, but based on the errors and gray areas on the graphs, the variance is low so the tests don't really discriminate between children.

In comparison to what, exactly?

In only a couple plots does a ceiling problem even rear its head a little, and even within those analyses it doesn't seem like an issue since if you mentally split the data prior to when kids are hitting ceiling, there are still no apparent gender differences.

Standard deviation in the data set for boys and in the data set for girls. I want to see how much variation is actually in the data, or is everyone more or less the same as I expect.
---

Squall28 posted...

Standard deviation in the data set for boys and in the data set for girls. I want to see how much variation is actually in the data, or is everyone more or less the same as I expect.

...they plot the distributions in several ways, you can literally look at the plots and see.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Reminds me of how Mozart's sister was considered to be even more of a prodigy than her brother, but was forced to give up music upon marriage.

This is core of the issue.
We've had several millennia of expecting men to specialize to make money, while expecting women to generalize to make households.

I strongly agree with this.
---

joestarrr posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Reminds me of how Mozart's sister was considered to be even more of a prodigy than her brother, but was forced to give up music upon marriage.

This is core of the issue.
We've had several millennia of expecting men to specialize to make money, while expecting women to generalize to make households.

I strongly agree with this.

And there's a simple reason for that: men don't have babies.
Yonder village can't very well have ye olde towne smithey inactive for several weeks (or months) of birthing and nursing. Bigass Monolithic Corporation can't very well have its lead analyst absent for a couple weeks either.

Until we begin creating new people in artificial gestation chambers, this issue will always remain to some degree.

COVxy posted...

Squall28 posted...

Standard deviation in the data set for boys and in the data set for girls. I want to see how much variation is actually in the data, or is everyone more or less the same as I expect.

...they plot the distributions in several ways, you can literally look at the plots and see.

I've said I already seen the plots and the deviation looks small there. I want to see what the actual numbers are per test.
---