Another theory bites the dust!

  ***POW!! #### BIFF-BAM!! %%%% ZOWEE!!!

 You know the  good ol’ Simon Baron Cohen theory that males possess analytic superiority as demonstrated by significantly more men at the top in performance on maths tests? 

See the abstract/article below (from Richard Zack’s blog)

 Janet S. Hyde, and Janet E. Mertz. Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. PNAS vol. 106, no. 22, (June 2, 2009).                        
Abstract: Using contemporary data from the U.S. and other nations, we address 3 questions: Do gender   differences in mathematics performance exist in the general population? Do gender differences exist among the mathematically talented? Do females exist who possess profound mathematical talent? In regard to the first question, contemporary data indicate that girls in the U.S. have reached parity with boys in mathematics performance, a pattern that is found in some other nations as well. Focusing on the second question, studies find more males than females scoring above the 95th or 99th percentile, but this gender gap has significantly narrowed over time in the U.S. and is not found among some ethnic groups and in some nations. Furthermore, data from several studies indicate that greater male variability with respect to mathematics is not ubiquitous. Rather, its presence correlates with several measures of gender inequality. Thus, it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between the sexes. Responding to the third question, we document the existence of females who possess profound mathematical talent. Finally, we review mounting evidence that both the magnitude of mean math gender differences and the frequency of identification of gifted and profoundly gifted females significantly correlate with sociocultural factors, including measures of gender equality across nations.

Many thanks, RZ!

7 thoughts on “Another theory bites the dust!

  1. Thanks. And even more so to Richard Zack.

    I had thought of a pic of wonder woman, but then realized the costume made that more of a problem.

  2. Um. I clicked on your link to Zach, I clicked on his link to the abstract, I clicked on the link there, it asked me for $10.00. I didn’t read the paper.

    Back in my day, I was taught science was repeatable, and in fact, had to be repeated to be accepted.

    Did Zach, or anyone here read the article? Or read any of the articles that link to that one?

    Has their research and analysis been critiqued? Results replicated? Corroborated how?

    If you haven’t read the original, or the followups, and all you are working on is from the abstract, isn’t the pow, biff, zam, zowie, a bit over the top?

    P.S. I don’t think your summary of Cohen’s theory is fair to the theory or to Cohen.

Comments are closed.