3 ms·

Why is it even worth discussing? Or even worth discovering? Why do we always break ourselves down (by age, gender, education, whatever) into groups and bump the

by tx 18y ago

Why is it even worth discussing? Or even worth discovering? Why do we always break ourselves down (by age, gender, education, whatever) into groups and bump them into each other?

tungstenfurnace 18y ago
Exactly. Why is it important whether boys or girls or Chinese or gay people are better at maths? Why are scarce research funds going into this? Questions I would be more interesting in: how can elementary maths be made more interesting? And how can we save children who aren't interested in maths from having it forced upon them?
- jrockway 18y ago
  I would rather find the answer to the question, "How can we make it more interesting for them." Regardless of whether or not mathematics interests you, it's a vital skill like reading. I don't really like "reading"* per se, but I still need to do it anyway. * s/reading/analysis of fiction/
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - tungstenfurnace 18y ago
    If a skill is truly vital then I will _want_ to learn it, sooner or later, whatever my present interests are. So there's no need for 'needs' to overrule 'wants'. (And in particular no need for thousands of people to be paid to deem what children's needs supposedly are.) For example, if I'm interested in a sport then eventually I'll want to learn elementary arithmetic to keep track of scores and the league tables. If my favourite thing is fantasy computer games I'll eventually want to read the names of other characters, etc. The new knowledge in both cases will enhance my love of the activity and I will not regard it as a sacrifice to learn it.
mynameishere 18y ago
Why do we always break ourselves down Identity politics. Follow the money. If you can get a person in authority to declare, "We are all equal, given 'fair' conditions," then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2. Men and women make different incomes. 3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly. 4. Corrective action is needed. This is a standard move in identity politics, and you will see it whenever two groups are different. Different people = different outcomes. But the vast bulk of people, including scientists, have been trained from birth to say, "All men [sic] are created equal". Once you decide that society isn't treating a group fairly, it is time to correct that. How? Affirmative action, set-asides, diversity training, repairations, etc. What's in store: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWYyM2I0NTRjZWY3NDA2Njk http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWY...
- tx 18y ago
  Then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2. Men and women make different incomes. 3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly. But the thing is - you can't. Our approach to statistical drug studies is more careful and mathematically sound than studies about our own identities. There isn't enough evidence in #1 and #2 to jump to #3, and normally outside of sensitive politics absurd like that simply goes ignored, kinda like child speak. Lemme offer you similarly absurd statement: Men and women are equal, yet men don't live as long as women do. Therefore, men's quality of life is lower and they are discriminated against.
  - mynameishere 18y ago
    Err, the logic is sound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens That's not the point. In politics, if you can trick people into believe rubbish X causes trash Y which leads to bullshit Z and make money off it, then that's what you do. Generally, it's best to have a semi-reasonable argument. In the case above, the flaw is in the statement "Men and women are equal", which is obviously not the case. (Nothing is equal to anything, except in pure mathematics.) Really, saying "men and women are equal" is a moral statement, with built-in failure, like the commands in the sermon on the mount. This leads to built-in transgression. Which leads to guilt. Which leads to submission. And so on.
greendestiny 18y ago
Breaking things into groups allows for contrast, and to discover patterns. Instead of a program which might allow a small proportion of students to better at maths (with better teaching perhaps), this could lead to an improvement in the mathematical ability of 50% of the population. That has huge economic and societal implications. The worst thing about breaking things into groups is members of groups other than the target seem to be simply blind to the importance of it.
- tx 18y ago
  It doesn't work. It's enormously difficult to construct a solid study with one properly isolated variable that's the subject in question. Even much, much, much easier tasks as exploring effects of smoking have been done over and over again, only to be declared invalid by yet another variable not accounted for. Statistics is hard to get right, this is why there are so many jokes about it. And trying to come up with a "proof" of anything by separating everybody into just two groups is idiotic. Yes, it makes one feel good about oneself, and can score you some votes if you're a politician, but it's a waste of time - it doesn't prove anything and only reminds blacks and women that they're "in a group", i.e. must be different by some criteria. This is what I call "recursive racism/sexism". It is not OK to say "first black president is a great achievement of America". The real achievement would have happened if nobody even noticed the color of his skin, you never heard of CNN anchormen talking about Bush's eye color, haven't you?
  - greendestiny 18y ago
    That's why the study broke it into two groups and then compared across many different countries (also groups). When what you are studying is the difference in cultures then it seems its impossible to isolate a variable like its a simple drug you're introducing.

by tx 18y ago

Why is it even worth discussing? Or even worth discovering? Why do we always break ourselves down (by age, gender, education, whatever) into groups and bump them into each other?

tungstenfurnace 18y ago

Exactly. Why is it important whether boys or girls or Chinese or gay people are better at maths? Why are scarce research funds going into this? Questions I would be more interesting in: how can elementary maths be made more interesting? And how can we save children who aren't interested in maths from having it forced upon them?

jrockway 18y ago
I would rather find the answer to the question, "How can we make it more interesting for them." Regardless of whether or not mathematics interests you, it's a vital skill like reading. I don't really like "reading"* per se, but I still need to do it anyway. * s/reading/analysis of fiction/
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- tungstenfurnace 18y ago
  If a skill is truly vital then I will _want_ to learn it, sooner or later, whatever my present interests are. So there's no need for 'needs' to overrule 'wants'. (And in particular no need for thousands of people to be paid to deem what children's needs supposedly are.) For example, if I'm interested in a sport then eventually I'll want to learn elementary arithmetic to keep track of scores and the league tables. If my favourite thing is fantasy computer games I'll eventually want to read the names of other characters, etc. The new knowledge in both cases will enhance my love of the activity and I will not regard it as a sacrifice to learn it.

mynameishere 18y ago

Why do we always break ourselves down Identity politics. Follow the money. If you can get a person in authority to declare, "We are all equal, given 'fair' conditions," then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2. Men and women make different incomes. 3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly. 4. Corrective action is needed. This is a standard move in identity politics, and you will see it whenever two groups are different. Different people = different outcomes. But the vast bulk of people, including scientists, have been trained from birth to say, "All men [sic] are created equal". Once you decide that society isn't treating a group fairly, it is time to correct that. How? Affirmative action, set-asides, diversity training, repairations, etc. What's in store: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWYyM2I0NTRjZWY3NDA2Njk http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWY...

tx 18y ago
Then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2. Men and women make different incomes. 3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly. But the thing is - you can't. Our approach to statistical drug studies is more careful and mathematically sound than studies about our own identities. There isn't enough evidence in #1 and #2 to jump to #3, and normally outside of sensitive politics absurd like that simply goes ignored, kinda like child speak. Lemme offer you similarly absurd statement: Men and women are equal, yet men don't live as long as women do. Therefore, men's quality of life is lower and they are discriminated against.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  Err, the logic is sound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens That's not the point. In politics, if you can trick people into believe rubbish X causes trash Y which leads to bullshit Z and make money off it, then that's what you do. Generally, it's best to have a semi-reasonable argument. In the case above, the flaw is in the statement "Men and women are equal", which is obviously not the case. (Nothing is equal to anything, except in pure mathematics.) Really, saying "men and women are equal" is a moral statement, with built-in failure, like the commands in the sermon on the mount. This leads to built-in transgression. Which leads to guilt. Which leads to submission. And so on.

greendestiny 18y ago

Breaking things into groups allows for contrast, and to discover patterns. Instead of a program which might allow a small proportion of students to better at maths (with better teaching perhaps), this could lead to an improvement in the mathematical ability of 50% of the population. That has huge economic and societal implications. The worst thing about breaking things into groups is members of groups other than the target seem to be simply blind to the importance of it.

tx 18y ago
It doesn't work. It's enormously difficult to construct a solid study with one properly isolated variable that's the subject in question. Even much, much, much easier tasks as exploring effects of smoking have been done over and over again, only to be declared invalid by yet another variable not accounted for. Statistics is hard to get right, this is why there are so many jokes about it. And trying to come up with a "proof" of anything by separating everybody into just two groups is idiotic. Yes, it makes one feel good about oneself, and can score you some votes if you're a politician, but it's a waste of time - it doesn't prove anything and only reminds blacks and women that they're "in a group", i.e. must be different by some criteria. This is what I call "recursive racism/sexism". It is not OK to say "first black president is a great achievement of America". The real achievement would have happened if nobody even noticed the color of his skin, you never heard of CNN anchormen talking about Bush's eye color, haven't you?
- greendestiny 18y ago
  That's why the study broke it into two groups and then compared across many different countries (also groups). When what you are studying is the difference in cultures then it seems its impossible to isolate a variable like its a simple drug you're introducing.