What's the difference between a liberal fascist and a fascist fascist? And do people know what fascism is, or has it just become synonymous with "thing I don't like"?
What's the difference between a liberal fascist and a fascist fascist? And do people know what fascism is, or has it just become synonymous with "thing I don't like"?
This is the correct answer. As he says, where's the drive to get more men into nursing?Originally Posted by randomlegend
You're a science man - are you not aware that men tend to have brains which are better at problem solving than women? This is the real reason more men go into these subjects. And you have to lol at the woman in the interview, who goes on about women crying because they tend to be more emotional caring. Exactly my point, dear.
There's plenty of data that indicates that there's no statistical difference in aptitude between men and women in mathematical or scientific areas, and that the biggest factor in demographic differences is the phenomenon known as stereotype threat. And the trend of equalization as we take steps to counter stereotype threat supports this.
I do mathematical outreach as part of my job. I'm literally paid to know about this stuff. I can point you at a dozen articles in high quality journals that have been published in the last half-decade that support my stance, if that's necessary here.
'Problem solving,' gotta love that term.
Almost as good as 'stereotype threat'...
A study completed recently in December 2013 on nearly 1,000 brain scans has surprisingly confirmed what many of us thought…that there are major differences between the male & female brain. Women’s and men’s brains are indeed wired in fundamentally different ways.
The research showed that on average, female brains are highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, and connections in male brains are typically stronger between the front and back regions. Men’s brains tend to perform tasks predominantly on the left-side, which is the logical/rational side of the brain. Women, on the other hand, use both sides of their brains because a woman’s brain has a larger Corpus Callosum, which means women can transfer data between the right and left hemispheres faster than men.This is basically what I am getting at.Brain Size & Brain Connections: Women’s brains are 8% smaller than men’s, but have more interconnections. Women perform better at “bigger picture” & situational thinking while men do better on more specific spatial thinking (problem solving, and pattern prediction involving objects and their spatial relationships).
http://www.fitbrains.com/blog/women-men-brains/
Bit of a worry, since the cognitive left/right divide is well-known to be a myth. There are some divides, but the whole brain is active in most processes.
A good article on the topic: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...31880802082518
Well whatever the reason, the results are the same - men do better on certain tasks than women.
And once you eliminate stereotype threat, the differences drastically reduce. There's plenty of studies that show there is no statistical support for inherent gender differences of aptitude in mathematical reasoning, which is direct problem-solving.
Some articles from high quality journals:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content...-9081-8-33.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/60/9/950/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78262611001977
http://edr.sagepub.com/content/18/8/17.short
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/5/770.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.short
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10....642-27702-3_41
These are articles we've cited in academic outreach documents for various reasons. There's dozens more (and over a wider range of problem classes, although our focus is naturally on studies that concentrate on mathematical aptitude), but I assume you don't want an entire bibliography. You can certainly take this as a representative sample of the state of contemporary literature on the topic.
And of course, while the plural of anecdote is not data, I can tell you that in my Oxford PhD cohort for applied maths, we had an exactly 50/50 ratio. And the best student of all of us was female too. I was pretty good even by department standards, but she left me in the dust. Still does.
I don't wish to eliminate 'stereotype threat'. That sounds like a junk term invented to explain something you want explained. At what point does it simply become about women just not wanting to do certain jobs? Is there a 'stereotype threat' with men and nursing or is it just that men do not tend to want to do that job?
I really don't know why anybody cares. Some subjects are dominated by women. Some aren't. The last time I saw some statistics on this (they could be out of date now) women have things like Psychology, English, and Sociology locked down. I think they even shaded a couple of scientific subjects as well, which people seem to forget when using 'science' and Physics as if they're the same thing.
It's subjects like English that actually benefit from more perspectives as well. I'm sure 'science' does, but surely Physics isn't particularly influenced by what bits you're approaching it with. Humanities are (might be scope for a blind taste test on whether a bird wrote what you're reading).
EDIT: When I say 'locked down' I mean in terms of PhD awards. If they can't then hack academia, or have their research career de-railed by having kids, then oh I'm sorry the world hasn't stopped for you love.
There does seem to be more women than men in the Biomedical Engineering labs next to ours but I haven't counted everyone so I might be wrong. My lab is all male though.
Ms. Pepe, who is into 16th century literature, says there is a current trend of some people suggesting that all/most of the female writing of the period was actually done by men.
I have no real idea about what goes on in the humanities. But it does seem like the kind of field which is advantaged from the presence of more perspectives. This is just speculation for me though, as it's way outside of my expertise or experience. While perspectives are still somewhat important in science, the first priority is to engage as many intelligent, enthusiastic and interested minds as possible. Science basically works as a function of volume.
To your edit though, there's a lot more support for things like pregnancy in academia now. Everyone basically understands that if an academic has a child, there's going to be a gap in their publication record which is totally reasonable. To my knowledge, most grants have provisions for suspension without penalty to allow for maternity situations, which is fair. I know a few people who were in this situation while I was in the UK, ranging from post-doc to professor. Nobody wants to lose a first-class mind just because they have to take a few months making sure their progeny stay alive.
When does paternity leave roll in? I want some of that.
I seem to recall that some of the Scandinavians have that, and there's no real stigma for taking it either. It makes sense really, at least for any group claiming to be pro-family.
By all means make it easy during/around the pregnancy, if only because the department doesn't want to lose somebody good; but the fact women have to have the kids is just an unfortunate reality isn't it? If it stalls your career (in spite of support) then what can you actually do?
I don't think outreach programmes are necessarily bad, but I think they should focus on socio-economics. I see job adverts in my field (lol) that 'particularly welcome' lady applications, and I've seen them that simply say that they will give the position to a bird if there are 'equally qualified' candidates (which ought to be impossible). I don't believe in quotas, but I do accept that there might be some scenarios in which the proverbial black lesbian in a wheelchair gets stiffed. The entirely white, entirely middle class female History PhD students I shared a department with do not suffer from structural disadvantages.
Harold in ignoring scientific findings that don't support his prejudices shocker!
They're cleverly establishing that theory so they can dispute it fifteen years from now and keep themselves in work.
I think academia is one field where anonymous CVs would really prove beneficial. It's probably a good idea anyway on balance, but I've always thought it wouldn't make much difference for those suit and tie jobs that private schools dominate (which the debate seems to focus on) because your CV would still have all your skiing holidays and unpaid internships on. It seems like the most simple change you could make for immediate results whilst covering yourself from accusations of *ism.
How would that work, given an academic CV presumably references the papers and publications you've written?
Henry in emotive, ignoring the obvious, left-wing loony shocker!
Scientific findings aren't emotive.
The scientific findings find, repeatedly, that men are better at some things than women, and vice-versa.
The only actual "scientific findings" posted here suggest it's learned rather than inherent though. You posted one promotional article with no references whatsoever.
That is a point (although names aren't necessarily on CV listings, and like balls do they go and look them all up during the initial stage[s]). What I was trying to get at is avoiding any gender/race identification (by whatever means) would be beneficial, and, whilst it would presumably reveal itself in any interview, by that point they have already established the pool.
I can see this going well.
Knock yourself out:
Differences! I'm scared!Strategy flexibility in mathematical problem solving was investigated. In Studies 1 and 2, high school juniors and seniors solved Scholastic Assessment Test-Mathematics (SAT-M) problems classified as conventional or unconventional. Algorithmic solution strategies were students' default choice for both types of problems across conditions that manipulated item format and solution time. Use of intuitive strategies on unconventional problems was evident only for high-ability students. Male students were more likely than female students to successfully match strategies to problem characteristics. In Study 3, a revised taxonomy of problems based on cognitive solution demands was predictive of gender differences on Graduate Record Examination-Quantitative (GRE-Q) items. Men outperformed women overall, but the difference was greater on items requiring spatial skills, shortcuts, or multiple solution paths than on problems requiring verbal skills or mastery of classroom-based content. Results suggest that strategy flexibility is a source of gender differences in mathematical ability assessed by SAT-M and GRE-Q problem solving
Gender Differences in Advanced Mathematical Problem Solving - ResearchGate. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publicat...roblem_Solving [accessed Oct 28, 2015].
Yes, men outperforming women in tests is pretty well established, as Ital's links acknowledge.
So what's your problem?
http://www.webmd.com/balance/feature...-differ?page=2
Research on that!
.....
Another web article with no references, great.
Yes, and this is a correct statement. Bear in mind that the context was mathematics.
Boys generally demonstrate superiority over female peers in areas of the brain involved in math and geometry. These areas of the brain mature about four years earlier in boys than in girls, according to a recent study that measured brain development in more than 500 children. Researchers concluded that when it comes to math, the brain of a 12-year-old girl resembles that of an 8-year-old boy. Conversely, the same researchers found that areas of the brain involved in language and fine motor skills (such as handwriting) mature about six years earlier in girls than in boys.
So, do these sex differences even out over time?
Females and males maintain unique brain characteristics throughout life. Male brains, for instance, are about 10% larger than female brains. But bigger doesn't necessarily mean smarter.
Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. That's not all. "The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume," Geary tells WebMD. This difference in form may explain a lasting functional advantage that females seem to have over males: dominant language skills.
Geary suggests that women use language skills to their advantage. "Females use language more when they compete. They gossip, manipulate information," he says. Geary suggests that this behavior, referred to as relational aggression, may have given females a survival advantage long ago. "If the ability to use language to organize relationships was of benefit during evolutionary history, and used more frequently by women, we would expect language differences to become exaggerated," he tells WebMD. Women also use language to build relationships, theorizes Geary. "Women pause more, allow the other friend to speak more, offer facilitative gestures," he says.
When it comes to performing activities that require spatial skills, like navigating directions, men generally do better. "Women use the cerebral cortex for solving problems that require navigational skills. Men use an entirely different area, mainly the left hippocampus -- a nucleus deep inside the brain that's not activated in the women's brains during navigational tasks," Geary tells WebMD. The hippocampus, he explains, automatically codes where you are in space. As a result, Geary says: "Women are more likely to rely on landmark cues: they might suggest you turn at the 7-11 and make a right at the church, whereas men are more likely to navigate via depth reckoning -- go east, then west, etc."
My old supervisor was once asked to come up an 'employability strategy' for the department, and, for whatever reason, he found himself researching that sort of stuff and coming to the same conclusions ('Evolution!'), determining that the education system was 'designed by and for women'. They told him not to bother in the end.
There's not much point linking a load of articles which require paid access in order to view their findings.And once you eliminate stereotype threat, the differences drastically reduce. There's plenty of studies that show there is no statistical support for inherent gender differences of aptitude in mathematical reasoning, which is direct problem-solving.
Some articles from high quality journals:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content...-9081-8-33.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/60/9/950/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78262611001977
http://edr.sagepub.com/content/18/8/17.short
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/5/770.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.short
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10....642-27702-3_41
These are articles we've cited in academic outreach documents for various reasons. There's dozens more (and over a wider range of problem classes, although our focus is naturally on studies that concentrate on mathematical aptitude), but I assume you don't want an entire bibliography. You can certainly take this as a representative sample of the state of contemporary literature on the topic.
And of course, while the plural of anecdote is not data, I can tell you that in my Oxford PhD cohort for applied maths, we had an exactly 50/50 ratio. And the best student of all of us was female too. I was pretty good even by department standards, but she left me in the dust. Still does.
He's done that deliberately so we can't don him shitless.
That's from the only findings I can actually see, other than the lol first article.Highlights
► Mathematically gifted subjects outperformed controls in mental rotation. ► In the same sample and task, male subjects outperformed female subjects.
It's happening anyway(!). Stick your paywall.
Those papers I posted still have abstracts available for free, and they're a small representative sample of the larger literature on the topic. I wanted to be clear that the studies we generally refer to are proper academic studies from high impact journals: PNAS and Brain & Cognition, rather than fitbrain.com and webmd. Any comprehensive literature search backs that up (as noted, it's just a small subsection of a much larger existing biography which we've used in outreach analysis), and it's clearly indicates by trends in the last two decades, when steps have been taken to mitigate the effects of socially-conditioned roles in education (colloquially known as "stereotype threat") which has seen overall gender performance trends skew markedly towards equality.
This isn't even controversial among scientific literature, and hasn't been for the best part of several decades. Nobody's seriously arguing about this.
Aren't you just arguing about the left/right brain thing, though? The fact men's and women's brains are different is not beyond dispute, and neither is the fact that men do better in some tasks and women in others.
I think the best thing you can do is try and create a culture where it's alright to take time out for child-rearing. Fortunately, this is increasingly the case in academia - certainly much more so than it was fifty years ago. To be honest, we complain, but I think academia is pretty good about parenting compared to a lot of industries.
I agree with some of that, except in the case where there is a noted historical disparity due to cultural influences which are still not entirely overcome, like women and mathematics. But I do think it should be targeted, rather than scattergun.I don't think outreach programmes are necessarily bad, but I think they should focus on socio-economics. I see job adverts in my field (lol) that 'particularly welcome' lady applications, and I've seen them that simply say that they will give the position to a bird if there are 'equally qualified' candidates (which ought to be impossible). I don't believe in quotas, but I do accept that there might be some scenarios in which the proverbial black lesbian in a wheelchair gets stiffed. The entirely white, entirely middle class female History PhD students I shared a department with do not suffer from structural disadvantages.
I'm definitely inclined to agree with this. It'd be really difficult to anonymize academic applications, but there's definitely a benefit to be gained there in the off-chance that they could pull it off. The problem is that you reach a point in academia where your publications are the first thing on your CV that really gets factored into hiring decisions, so even at the early stages they'll at least be looking over the list.
It's simple. The entire corpus of contemporary research literature (a representative sample of which I linked previously) indicates that there is no evidence to support the existence of gender-based difference in mathematical or scientific aptitude between males and females. This isn't considered a controversial statement.
Didn't the only line I've seen from your first link admit that men scored higher? 'In the same sample and task, male subjects outperformed female subjects.'
Do you think, on the whole, women make better nurses than men?
Is it not the case that tests on people who have been socially conditioned will reflect the results of that social conditioning?
You could literally say that about anything if you wanted to hide behind it. Perhaps you've been socially conditioned to be a soppy twat? So why should I listen to you?
Moving on - another factor is that men are simply more intelligent at the higher end of the scale. That's another stark fact.
Why do you get so aggressive when I was only asking a simple question?
Because it's a non-question. Besides, 'Social conditioning' these days would be very much in the opposite direction, if anything.
No you can't. There are specific statistical methodologies to account for these factors. This is quantitative, data-driven research.
None of this is supported by actual academic literature. You keep insisting on old wives' conclusions that have been rejected by actual studies.Moving on - another factor is that men are simply more intelligent at the higher end of the scale. That's another stark fact.
You can only read one line? If you read the whole thing, you'll find that there's no statistical evidence for gender-based difference. It's a study on mitigating the effects of anxiety driven by mathematics. Key line within the conclusions: "Furthermore, our study showed no gender difference in mathematics performance, despite girls reporting higher levels of MA (mathematical anxiety)." And to save you some time, this is consistent with all of the other studies.
As to nursing, my impression is that I doubt it, although I'm not personally involved in nursing education at any level, so I don't know of any particular studies. I do know that a few years back, Queensland Health were running short on nurses and specifically ran a campaign to destigmatize it as a female discipline. Numbers balanced there too. Stereotype threat cuts both ways.
I was just going on what RM said, after he said you can't read most of the links you posted. When I asked the nursing question, it was an 'on average' question, because I've no doubt that men inclined to go into nursing are just as good as women. But not many men do go into nursing, because most men are not cut out for it. That's the point. Same goes for the higher levels of most academic subjects. That's why men are vastly over-represented in Nobel prizes - men are simply more intelligent at the higher levels.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote