3 ms·

I have a feeling that the variability is at least partially modulated by factors such as (lack of) encouragement and gender bias. Imagine a spinning flywheel (

I have a feeling that the variability is at least partially modulated by factors such as (lack of) encouragement and gender bias. Imagine a spinning flywheel (this is a terrible analogy but I think it will illustrate my point) with particles on it that jump off the edge at random velocities. The added velocity of the flywheel eventually makes them end up at a certain radial distance on the ground. Regardless of the speed at which the flywheel spins, the average position of the particles on the ground will be at the center of the flywheel. But if the flywheel is spinning fast, the variability will be greater than if it is spinning slowly. I think in a similar way, encouragement and bias -- like the speed of the flywheel -- can account for this variability, rather than intrinsic differences in the capacity for mathematical reasoning. That said, it is interesting why the gap seemed to bottom out at 4 to 1 despite supposed programs to encourage young women to go into mathematics and science.

Perceval 16y ago
I can see why "encouragement and bias" might account for higher male achievement, but not why that would at the same time account for lower male achievement.
- snikolov 16y ago
  That's a very good point. This seems to be a major point against an explanation based solely on encouragement/bias. In a solely encouragement/discouragement based theory, it might be that for some reason, males are encouraged as well as discouraged more strongly than females. I don't know of any (even anecdotal) evidence of this happening, so I wouldn't bet on it. In any case, the underlying origins of these statistics are no doubt complex, messy and controversial.
- m-photonic 16y ago
  Males are not a homogenous group. There's no reason why some subgroups of males couldn't be negatively affected by social pressures just because other subgroups are positively affected.
  - miri 16y ago
    Male nurses is probably the most glaring example of that.

Perceval 16y ago

I can see why "encouragement and bias" might account for higher male achievement, but not why that would at the same time account for lower male achievement.

snikolov 16y ago
That's a very good point. This seems to be a major point against an explanation based solely on encouragement/bias. In a solely encouragement/discouragement based theory, it might be that for some reason, males are encouraged as well as discouraged more strongly than females. I don't know of any (even anecdotal) evidence of this happening, so I wouldn't bet on it. In any case, the underlying origins of these statistics are no doubt complex, messy and controversial.
m-photonic 16y ago
Males are not a homogenous group. There's no reason why some subgroups of males couldn't be negatively affected by social pressures just because other subgroups are positively affected.
- miri 16y ago
  Male nurses is probably the most glaring example of that.