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 (102891)	3/2/2005 8:26:41 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

women are more inclined to such roles. i doubt it has anything to do with gender. the sons are indifferent and lack any compassion.

To: Ilaine who wrote (102891)	3/3/2005 5:14:20 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

I agree completely with that post CB <It's no more polite or reasonable to mention that she's female than it would be to mention that she's pretty or ugly or white or black or rich or poor or large breasted or flat chested. Statistics don't tell you anything about individuals. > The point under discussion was the theme that women don't do well in sciences or maths, especially at the high end. People see that as a problem. I agree with you, it's not a problem, it's just a fact and people's individual abilities are what matter. Affirmative action to get more women in is silly. Same with negroes. Just select people on their talents and achievements. If that means few women and negroes do maths, and lots of Jews do, that's just the way it goes. It's not a problem to be solved. It's just natural human variation. BUT, it's worth thinking about why that might be. The causes of things are worth understanding. If it's simply a lack of a Y chromosome, then there's nothing to be done. If it's a result of 3 fewer years of brain development, there's nothing to be done. They are just facts of being female. I seriously think that girls need accelerated education in earlier years. It's obvious from female verbal skills that there's no gender gap. IQ tests show no gender gap too. Maths is just another language. Learning languages young is the way to become fluent. I suspect that the real reason women don't do so well in maths is because of not being involved with it until after puberty. Males get maths at the same age as females, which means they are have 3 extra years before puberty and full brain development. But "female" is still just a wild generalisation. What's really needed is education tuned to the individual. An early maturing male misses out more than a late maturing female. If high-end maths ability of early maturing males is compared with the high-end maths ability of late maturing females, I bet the females beat the males easily. Though there are the social factors which are more commonly referred to, meaning women see maths as unfeminine - which I think is more a consequence of the timing and way of teaching than maths being intrinsically a masculine language, which I don't believe. As you say, it's all about the individual. Herding children all in together by age, ignoring factors such as their intelligence, maturation and other individual variables, is a big mistake and explains the difference in Harvard University. I hasten to add that it might not be the complete explanation, but it looks to me like enough to explain the whole matter. You can't teach an old dog, or old women, new tricks. Mqurice