Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (96456)	1/23/2005 1:01:34 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793914

A scientific study can't actually "prove" things like that, all it can do is suggest that it is statistically more likely than not. Until you mentioned that, I hadn't focused on how much the discussion of studies on the thread and in the media has been assuming a statistical study. As you say, there isn't any way to design a study to prove that males are inherently better at math. There's no way to isolate that veriable and there's no way to test it independent of nurturing. In my comments I have allowed for the possibility that it is true that males are, indeed, inherently better. I allow for that the same way I allow for the possibility that there may be a deity--there's no way to prove otherwise and there are some indications that it could be so. The problem with this reliance in argumentation on statistical-type studies is that, as you say, they foster the diminished-expectations attitude. And they do so without any possibility of actual enlightenment. Which makes it the whole business destructive. At some point science may be able to find some anatomic basis for the assertion. Until then people like Summers should shut up about it. There's nothing to be gained and much to be lost. P.S. Only about two inches of snow here.