Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

[Dr. Who]

But that is not what this study is about. The OP study demonstrates males are both over- and under-achievers, with females in the middle. It too disputes the finding of previous studies, not with speculation, but with data.

Did the study take 1,000 babies, male and female and raise them from birth in a completely neutral environment without any stereotyping whatsoever? If not, the subjects of the study were already tainted by sociological influences. So if women are given to believe that they are less capable of mathematic or scientific achievement, chances are that few will reach for that carrot. In fact, excessive displays of intellect or talent have historically been discouraged in females. That might tend to skew the results of any such study. Variability theory in males is not a new area of study. It goes back to Darwin. It is also highly disputed wrt human beings on the basis of environmental factors.

[Dr. Who]

@IMPress Polly - this topic should interest you!

[Chris]

Did the study take 1,000 babies, male and female and raise them from birth in a completely neutral environment without any stereotyping whatsoever? If not, the subjects of the study were already tainted by sociological influences. So if women are given to believe that they are less capable of mathematic or scientific achievement, chances are that few will reach for that carrot. In fact, excessive displays of intellect or talent have historically been discouraged in females. That might tend to skew the results of any such study. Variability theory in males is not a new area of study. It goes back to Darwin. It is also highly disputed wrt human beings on the basis of environmental factors.

Then how in this study do you account for males scoring the lowest? Do we speculate along with you about stereotypes tainting skewing the results?

What goes back to Darwin, the sterotyping?

Make some sense. You're arguing about a different set of studies and results, not the study and results that are the subject of the cuurrent topic.

[Chris]

@IMPress Polly - this topic should interest you!

This study, not the studies Who is trying to interject into the topic.

[Adelaide]

Then how in this study do you account for males scoring the lowest? Do we speculate along with you about stereotypes tainting skewing the results?

What goes back to Darwin, the sterotyping?

Make some sense. You're arguing about a different set of studies and results, not the study and results that are the subject of the cuurrent topic.

Males often have trouble at the secondary level because of learning style differences and differences in emotional maturity. Females may be influenced to perform poorly in the STEM disciplines, but then males hit an age and a level of schooling that doesn't account for a lower emotional maturity level or learning styles more prevalent in preteenage and teenage boys.

Additionally, it is primarily male students who receive a diagnosis of ADHD during early development and are put on stimulants. Once you label someone, it follows them and they will perform how people tell them they will perform. It's like the myth that sugar causes children to become irritable and overactive - no, it's actually parents who have conditioned their children to think that is how they should respond to sugar. Other diagnoses like ODD, CD and a higher prevalence of callous-unemotional traits are additional barriers that are more likely to impact male students. Usually, these kids with early diagnoses of ADHD, ODD, and/or CD are all put into special programs that reinforce the idea that they won't succeed.

[Chris]

Males often have trouble at the secondary level because of learning style differences and differences in emotional maturity. Females may be influenced to perform poorly in the STEM disciplines, but then males hit an age and a level of schooling that doesn't account for a lower emotional maturity level or learning styles more prevalent in preteenage and teenage boys.

Additionally, it is primarily male students who receive a diagnosis of ADHD during early development and are put on stimulants. Once you label someone, it follows them and they will perform how people tell them they will perform. It's like the myth that sugar causes children to become irritable and overactive - no, it's actually parents who have conditioned their children to think that is how they should respond to sugar. Other diagnoses like ODD, CD and a higher prevalence of callous-unemotional traits are additional barriers that are more likely to impact male students. Usually, these kids with early diagnoses of ADHD, ODD, and/or CD are all put into special programs that reinforce the idea that they won't succeed.

Thanks. That at least addresses the OP study instead of ignoring it as Who does.

It could be the ADHD that accounts for the low scoring males and not the social stigma.

[Dr. Who]

Then how in this study do you account for males scoring the lowest? Do we speculate along with you about stereotypes tainting skewing the results?

There are a fair number of studies such as the one in question that reach the same conclusions - unfortunately, the underlying data is all affected by the same problems.

What goes back to Darwin, the sterotyping?

Variability theory in males is not a new area of study. It goes back to Darwin.

Make some sense. You're arguing about a different set of studies and results, not the study and results that are the subject of the cuurrent topic.

The conclusion about females is challenged in many studies. The conclusion about males is equally suspect. For instance, regarding "idiocy" in males, there are a fair number of studies that have concluded the boys tend not to learn as well from female teachers as they do from male teachers and that the school environment (in particular elementary school) tends to penalize boys for being boys. Research shows that in utero exposure to higher levels of testosterone in males is linked to slower maturation of parts of the temporal lobe, along with lower levels of empathy and lower-quality social relationships. IOW, little boys have less self-control at early ages than little girls. It can also inhibit the ability to focus. Little boys need to be taught to sit still, focus, communicate, plan etc. Something little girls are more capable of at an earlier age because of the differential rates of frontal cortical maturation as between girls and boys. The result is that little boys tend to fall behind in elementary school far more often than little girls, which has a domino effect going into higher grades. Add in any adverse sociological factors and you have your reasons for boys failing to achieve, dropping out of school and all of the other resultant negative consequences.

On the other hand, when boys are capable of overcoming these factors, either through good parenting or an inclination to be more quiet, boys tend to be more encouraged to achieve academically, particularly by parents. Are geniuses born or made? That is an ongoing topic of research. While innate intelligence would seem to be a factor, it's not the only factor.
http://theweek.com/articles/706193/a...uses-born-made

I would say that the study in question draws conclusions on the basis of rather circumstantial evidence.

[Adelaide]

Thanks. That at least addresses the OP study instead of ignoring it as Who does.

It could be the ADHD that accounts for the low scoring males and not the social stigma.

Social stigma comes with an ADHD diagnosis. It is part of why overdiagnosis is an issue. If you are told you are less likely to succeed, you will be less likely to succeed. Because a lot of ADHD diagnoses come during the child development phase it creates a lasting stigma that reinforces the idea of not being able to succeed in an academic environment. It also becomes problematic about whether the diagnoses are accurate because studies have found that children born between October and December receive the most diagnoses of ADHD; when you're age 6 to 9 years, a 3 months age difference is enough to account for why someone may seem more hyperactive but does not actually have ADHD. Of course, there are many legitimate diagnoses, but it is too easy to label a child as having ADHD when it's really a maturity issue. It then establishes a conditioning that tells the child they are not going to do well in school.

So, females are conditioned to think they won't be successful in STEM classes and portions of the male population are indoctrinated to think they will never succeed so why bother? Then it becomes more complicated because the standard secondary school education isn't very adaptive or responsive to the needs of many male students.

[IMPress Polly]

I don't know all the details of this particular area of study, but I do know that, broadly speaking, girls are socialized to believe that we are dumber. Though we are not. I doubt that girls and women are actually just less apt in technical skills by nature.

[Chris]

I don't know all the details of this particular area of study, but I do know that, broadly speaking, girls are socialized to believe that we are dumber. Though we are not. I doubt that girls and women are actually just less apt in technical skills by nature.

The particular study, despite Who's distraction, shows that males score both higher and lower than females in mathematics. That removes the data from any claim females are socially stigmatized. Girls may believe that, but no data supports that belief lowers scores. Try and read the OP and address it.