In some cultures straight men even kiss each other. Ewwww

He did kind of give that impression.

YoU cAn'T sAy ThAt WoRd

Something as broad as math, yes..

Spatial perception, mechanical reasoning, rotating geometric shapes... these are proxies for some other underlying difference that show a 0.5-1 stdv in the general population.

Of course it's possible that these things are influenced by culture but it's not clear to what extent. We can say that it's indeterminate as to how much of this is culturally driven at best.

But it's important to take into consideration that even if these differences may drop to as low as 0.25stdv if were to completely eliminate cultural conditioning, that doesn't mean the propensity for an underlying aptitude is that small. Because there're a lot of things besides gender that impact those scores, both biological and sociocultural.

If we were to eliminate statistical noise associated with biological/sociocultural trends a 0.25stdv difference may present itself as a 1 or 2 stdv difference when looking at closely related male/females of identical socioeconomic backgrounds. One way to test for this is to examine gender differences in these areas when holding IQ constant.


The second part of the question is what relevance they have to specific outcomes. The relationship between those structures and proficiency at high school math seems negligible. As per the link I posted earlier though, spatial reasoning does seem to have even more predictive power of being granted a patent than SATs when filtering for already high achieving students. This is a plausible mechanism that contributes to the very significant discrepancy we see in innovation in almost all fields.

You use that meme a lot, I’m guessing.

Shall we also speculate about if it drops 0 stdv? How about if it swings in the other direction 0.25 stdv or maybe 0.5-1 stdv? Do we not want to be complete in our speculations for things we fully admit are not clear? Or are we good just speculating at the point where we can concede there are societal influences but still maintain our sexist hypotheses?

You ignored the point and avoided the questions. This is the usual pattern in dealing with you and trying to extract the reasoning behind your position or defend it. It's a whole lot of selective engagement and pivoting. Its like trying to get a straight answer out of a well trained politician

In the post below I ask questions. You avoided, ignored, or re-framed. You actually responded to my post, but none of its actual content

This doesn't contend with anything I asked and it deals with just one aspect in the whole issue of identity
You do the same thing with affirmative action and other topics. for example

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=515

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=527

Sorry you didn't actually answer the question or the underlying point. You reverted back to your position and restated it like a well trained politician

Anyways I am in favor if formulating real categories. Things like categories and definitions are tools and if we share them, we can communicate with each other. If you are able to do that, you can be a more useful participant in a cooperative society. If you demolish that and start using your own fantasy language, definitions, and categories, you are eroding your ability to conceptualize, participate, and be useful. The categories of blue, yellow, and green exist for a reason. Its actually useful we understand each other and what they mean. I'm not in favor of demolishing those 3 categories in favor of everyone having to know, understand, or learn 300 shades of those 3 categories. People that need to know the differences will do so. It's certainly not a functional proposition to teach a kindergarten student. On top of that, we are talking about color here and its not even a good analogy. At best it kind of deals with a single aspect of the issue. Other aspect might become more apparent if you were to even attempt to deal with the actual questions I asked

Also wanted to make sure you understood that I wasn't referring to you when I said the pissy mob has a comment about everything but magically ignored my questions which would involve substance. I think the posting over the last couple days speaks for itself. As it gets more pissy, more pissy posters arrive. As the thread gets more pissy the volume of posts increase. Its like catnip for them. Although I agree with well named to step in to steer away from that, its probably a better idea to deal with the mob of habitual offenders than it is to single out and go after their target. I get that its easier but sometimes developing a back bone pays off in the long run

hey i notice you were objecting to the primate studies on gender differences in toy preferences. Although the evidence isn't conclusive, it is actually quite useful. Along with that there are studies showing prenatal testosterone in girls and toy preference which I referenced earlier. You can see the studies in the link below. There's also plenty of research to help people conceptualize the differences in the post above it

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=311

So you are like a wannabe diagnostician?

If you want to dismiss anything that falls short of being 100% empirically conclusive as equally likely you'd find yourself in good company with Christian scientists. Evolution IS, after all, just a theory.

Do you want me to provide studies that demonstrate how specific aptitudes like this are linked to gender stratified brain structures?

What we don't know (with much confidence) is how the underlying processes can be extrapolated in ways that might be relevant to more complex functions. This is the point that's argued in research friendly to your position - not that the differences don't exist.

No, thanks. I don't want you to provide off-topic studies that are practically useless (as you elucidate). I also, as implied in my previous post, don't want to read biased takes on what they might possibly mean.

juan, since you are concerned about questions not getting answered, here's one for you that you might have missed.

Unless there is a point to be made, do we really need to prolong this discussion of men vs women in math? While there are more men than women in STEM and studies in the states have shown that boys tend to score higher on the math portion of the SAT's (in some countries girls outperform boys). Does that mean that woman are not in STEM as much as men because of a small statistical difference where men are slightly better, and slightly worse for that matter, at math than women? Absolutely not. There are a myriad of factors and tens of hundreds of research papers that cover this topic. Women do just as well as men in these fields and studies show that if woman have female professors in intro STEM courses, they are more likely to move into STEM. So as spaceman Bryce alluded to earlier, role models are an important factor as well. Imo, this maths debate doesn't really add much to the conversation of whether or not "biological sex and gender actually do(es) have a(n) evolutionary connection".

Here's an intriguing question
A) Why is matt hirschhorn a habitual liar? Come at me with "fax" and "truth" that I call sCiEnCE and I'll graPPle your aTTaCKs with a fLyIng aRm baR into sUbmiSSioN.

The conversation is framed the way it is, because that's the conversation some want. The whole goal is to put someone on the wrong side of a fabricated narrative. I would suggest if you are going to talk about the differences between men and women, focus on the bad **** that occurs to men. Men die earlier, much more likley to be victim of violent crime, much more likely to be in prison, much more likely to die in combat....

My perspective is, many on the left, men mostly, overemphasis certain skills, and place a high status on them. When they see the disparate ratios, they think this is unfair. However, the degree to which those who are disenfranchised today is mitigated by the degree of agency people have, makes such hand wringing pointless.

My main claim has been that gender differences are mostly biological, this is all. This discussion has nothing to even do with math. The point juan is getting across is that there are biological causes for these differences. Ffs.

You are insufferable. My point was that biology has an impact on the gender differences between the genders. I am not going to backpedel and have you attempt character assassination on me. Good day. Also, I already said this but I will say it again, I simply brought up mathematical ability differences because it is talked about/debated to a high degree in the public. The specific differences are not even the point, the fact that you can't seem to understand this simple fact is strange and shows you are clearly emotionally charged.

Gender and physical sex are two different things

and you're the meme of this thread, deal with it

Ah yes, the ever popular "men have it way worse off guize" argument.

Have you ever actually spoken to a woman? What does your mom think when you tell her how much worse off men are?

This post proves everything, you people are clearly emotionally charged in your arguements. This has nothing to do with are men better then women, or do women have it harder or anything else. Thanks for proving my point though with this comment.

Brilliant. We finally got the answer folks. Impressive, it really is.

You know, I wouldn't be going this hard on you if you weren't such an ass about how superior you think you are. Might wanna get your superiority complex checked out.

Did you forget about the war part, the part where males kill millions of people? I love how you just leave that part out. mods just lock this thread, these people can't be helped at this point.

Yea sure give that answer too. I found the third one to be the most interesting, which is why I answered only that one expecting a response.

If you think it was a "trap" it was your own damn question lol. This is starting to get comical.

Right. And when one's gender doesn't match one's biological sex they call it gender dysphoria. Wonder why.

The biggest flaw in itshotinvegas style thinking on this issue , assuming I understand his positioning is that it empowers reactionary right wingers. I don’t think Matt Hirschhorns perspective is what people think it is at this point.