Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Underconfidence in gifted girls

And if I remember correctly - haven't looked at it for over 25 years - culture can at least impact cognitition itself as shown by Luria's work in Central Asia.

(Chinese and Japanese writing systems are actually properly called logographic.)

Korean isn't logographic. Nor are Thai, Burmese, or Cambodian. Alternatively, Egyptian hieroglyphics were logographic. Though a variety of new world languages used pictographs for writing, as do a few languages in and around Nigeria and old Chinese writing systems. Etc. So logographic and pictographic systems show up all over the world.

Burmese letters are rounded: people originally wrote on palm leaves and straight lines would have torn the leaves. So in this case at least, the writing system was dictated by the medium that was available to be written on. Also, if I was carving a story into a stone using the tools available 3,000 years ago, I might be inclined to use the most efficient means possible, which would be logographic or pictographic over letters. And, TBH, pictograms seem to be a natural way to start a writing system, and I can see how they would evolve to logographic systems and letters as the available materials changed and as people tinkered with them.

... as anyone who has ever played Pictionary with a seriously competitive group of people soon realizes.

"East Asians have a relative strength in spatial ability"

Begging the question. Even assuming that the tests of spatial ability are properly measuring it--which may well be the case--we have no reason to believe that that is a cause of, rather than consequence of, the symbolic nature of Kanji.

The whole point is that we do not have tools, given a respect for basic human rights and unpredictability and complexity of human societies, to perform the experiments that would allow us to tease out cause from effect in these socio-economic, ethnic and gender based differences.

There is absolutely no question that people of African-American descent perform worse on average on standardized tests. THAT is not the question.

The question is WHY. Simply saying, "Well, we haven't managed to change it, so it's biological," is totally illogical. Same goes for "girls can't do math", "white guys can't dance", "boys aren't verbal", etc. You need to be able to show a causative relationship, not just a correlation.

Randomized controlled trials that would control for the variables in question from conception to adulthood (well past 26) would require the controlling of thousands of individuals for three decades. If you can get funding and approval for that, let me know. I'm in!

For the reasons you stated, we will never know for sure to what extent sex differences in STEM achievement and racial differences in academic achievement are genetic. In that case, we should not jump to the conclusion that any difference is either a flaw in the measuring instrument ("the SAT is biased") or the result of unequal opportunities ("rich kids score better because of test prep").

Agreed! We ought not to presume. Until we do know, we can continue to discuss and explore. There is a current discussion thread with a similar theme here ... it is speaking of a district with more boys than girls identified for the gifted math class.

We can know how cultural bias influences STEM achievement gender gaps by cross-referencing data against other countries. Any differences due to genetics should be consistent.


We can find out more by doing controlled studies into such things as teacher bias:
http://www.livescience.com/19552-girls-math-teachers-bias.html

Interesting links, thanks for sharing!

In the second link, the article first speaks of comparable test scores, then contrasts this with stating the teachers believed the math was easier for boys. In fact, both could be true: students could have comparable test scores and at the same time the math may be easier for some than for others.

Finishing a test early and receiving the same score as a student requiring the full allotted time comes to mind. Growth mindset and the virtue of effort come to mind. One is not better than the other, but they do represent a difference.

Well, if it's not genetic, and it's not cultural, then I'd be interested in your alternative hypotheses. Because we live in an "advanced" Western civilization which only, after millennia of feminine marginalization, have reluctantly allowed equality of opportunity for women for only the last 3-4 decades, and yet we can still see a math gap in only 35/65 participating nations... so it's most definitely NOT genetics.

"Any differences due to genetics should be consistent."

Oh, definitely not. Height differences between men and women are consistent in that they exist in all cultures, but in some cultures men and women have greater height differences than in others. It depends on how they are nourished as children and other genetic factors such as when they hit puberty.

I personally don't believe it's possible to test this hypothesis scientifically at this time. I think we have to move forward with the assumption that girls can do it, because it hurts nobody, and see how it works out. The only alternative is to effectively give up on girls, "You didn't catch up fast enough!", and stop providing them with the support they need to overcome implicit bias, minority status, and so on.