Interesting theory, Jamie! However, first-born boys are still boys, you know? I don't think you can say "Boys are better are math," if your corollary is "As long as you leave out first-born boys" (of which there are an awful lot!)
If there were data on the high end (IMO, USAMO, SET, etc) showing the split was 1:1 for at least some statistically significant areas, then this would be very convincing evidence against variability, but that data doesn't show 1:1, it shows 3:1 or more in many cases.
Sure. But 20 years ago, it was 13:1. 20 years is an evolutionary microsecond! I'm willing to wager that the ratio will continue to decrease.
This goes to my earlier point about it being ludicrous to conclude that just at THIS very instant we have magically reached the point where the differences are all biological and no cultural issues remain. Surely you would agree that there remain many cultural stereotypes steering girls away from math?
The earlier articles were claiming to have data that contradicted variability by looking at data which would be least likely to show it
The earlier study had several parts, one of which looked at NCLB-type state exams (which I agree do not disprove variability, though they disprove a generalized "Boys are better at math than girls, on average" belief, which IMO is held by 80-90% of the American public) and one of which looked at the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, where they give the SAT to kids under age 13. Perhaps some would argue that this is still not a high enough standard, but I think most on this board would agree that scoring over 700 on the math SAT at age 11 is indicative of giftedness in math.
