Re: THR FEMINAZI PROBLEM

[regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps)]

supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:

Since you want the last word, I'll be brief;

>regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps) wrote:

>>Would that it were true, unfortunatley, you are both just guessing. One of
the
>>problems with this topic is that you have to have a certain amount of
>>mathematical sophistication in order to understand it in the first place.

>I am not guessing. 

Yes, you are. More below.

>>There is no evidence that you can not find a woman as good at or better at
>>math than the best man.

>Exactly.  However, chances are much greater that such a woman is going
>to be from asia, not the United States.

You are talking study habbits. It doesn't change the distrubution.  

>Remember, here in the United
>States, we have in the past DISencouraged girls from liking subjects like
>math and science.  In asian cultures, math is not just a tool but an end
>in itself.  I have talked to people from these cultures...you have to realize
>that if you are not good in math as a child, parents often think there is
>something wrong with you.

You are recalling the distant past to support your argument.

>>However, the likelyhood of a randomly selected woman being
>>as mathematically tallented as a randomly selected man is low.

>Only in our culture.  Not in asia.

Where do you get this idea?

>>The distribution goes something like this:
>>
>>Average male = 1 in 10 female
>>1 in 10 male = 1 in 1000 female
>>1 in 100 male = 1 in >10,000 female.

>Would this study be "The Bell Curve"?  That's a pseudoscientific racist piece
of garbage.  

So, you HAVEN'T read the research then. Please, no need to errect straw men
then show how well you knock them down. Was the Bell Curve written by a female
researcher at San Francisco? You know it was not.

>In fact, legitimate studies of even Americans on SAT scores
>show a 95% overlap in male and female scores in math and verbal. Supposedly,
>in the remaining 5%, females do better in verbal and males do better in math,
>but you know what?  This is NOT true for the asian immigrants.  Since they
>learned English as a second language, of course their verbal scores are not
>as good, but they excel in the math section...true of both males and females.

I should have mentioned that the studies are of adults. Boys and girls score
about the same or girls a little better till late puberty when the distribution
begins to define itself.

>>The studies have been done in many cultures in many environments. In fact a
>>study of studies was published by a woman researcher in San Francisco. It
>>didn't get much press because it is anti-good wishes and not PC.

>And there have been many counter studies.  

I have not seen any.

>However, the ones that do the
>studies on "many cultures" always conveniently ignore asian cultures.  Or
>how the brightest asian female math student will typically do better than the
>brightest white male math student raised in the United States.  

I don't think this is true but OK

>This is NOT
>genetic...it has nothing to do with race or gender...an asian born to second
>generation parents native to the United States will reflect the same pattern
>as the white student raised in the United States.

>When you give legos and tool kits to boys and dolls to girls, who do you
>think will be more visual/spatially inclined?  In asia, parents grill their
>children
>in math like it is life or death because to do poorly in that subject is to
>risk
>being seen as somehow less intelligent.

When you spend four million years differentiating the sexes into those who use
spatial skills in hunting and those who use verbal skills in camp, do you think
there will be any difference in the adult brains?

>>This in no way denies that women can be great mathematicians, it just
suggests
>>there might be maybe a 100 to 1 ratio of male to female math professors and
>>maybe a 25 or 50 to 1 ratio in engineering, which is about what we have. It
>>doesn't mean female engineers are inferior or anything like that.

>Again, it is not "nature" but "nurture"...your figures reflect the biases in
>the raising of boys and girls in the United States.

Unsuported but very egalitarian sounding. Are you a younger person fresh from
modern self esteem based schooling?

>>It does mean that if some kind of gender equalization is strived for,
standards
>>will be lowered and excuses will be looked for like "insufficient female role
>>models", "male oriented curriculum", etc.

>I suggest Apple provide visas to hire more asian women, then.  You see,
>because of their culture, they are in fact talented in these areas.  You'll
>also get female role models in the process.

Or they could just hire men.

>When I was in high school, my math teacher was an asian woman. You
>can see the difference in teaching style right away.  She engaged ALL her
>students, not just the boys...

High school math is not exactly what we are talking about in this distribution.
High school math would be some sort of expected average wouldn't you think?
Women who can teach high school math should be quit common.

>>Just remember what Gloria Steinem said she finalley realized about the
>>difference between boys and girls. You can raise boys in non-violent, no toy
>>guns type households and all it means is that two year olds will pick up a
>>BArbie Doll, point it at you and go "bang".

>That's bullshit.  You can raise peace loving boys just as easily as peace
>loving girls.

Talk less, watch more. Who does the throwing, stabing, poking, etc? And I
wonder why? Don't tell me you don't believe in evolution?

>>But all the cross cultuaral and properly normed testing says the one in a
>>hundred male is about as good as the one in ten thousand female.

>No, no, no.  There are studies that go either way, but the majority cite
>a 95% overlap in all subjects of United States origin.  Most show the
>environment as the main cause, not anything innate.

Never seen em cited in American Scientist or Science News or Physics Today or
The Physics Teacher. Where did you see them, The Nation or the Utne Reader?

>>Possible evolutionary reasons abound but are beside the point.

>Wrong.  If you are referring to Don Wilson's "man hunted" comment,
>this is all wrong.  For most of prehistory, the human ancestors were
>scavengers and of course both men and women scavenged.  I think you
>should pose your "math inclination" figures and evolutionary differences
>questions to the sci.bio.evolution newsgroup.  Many people who are
>actually doing these studies post there...

>In any case, this subject no longer belongs in comp.sys.apple2.

No, NOW the subject is closed :-)

Charlie Springer