Observations about kids at the camp

[Dmmetler]

I think girls are massively encouraged but I always worry about biology. Teen girls (most of them) want to be liked by boys. Young men are in a vulnerable state as well and often fear girls who are smarter than them in math, mainly because it's a rare boy who can out-talk a girl, no matter what their intelligence (this is also socialization). My partner has told me that it can be frustrating for him because although I think we are evenly matched in our abstract reasoning, my verbal ability is way, way higher. Partly because of my personality, partly socialization, and I'd be lying if I said I thought none of it came from hormones. (Just like his ability to be competitive and play touch sports comes somewhat from hormones....)

 

So I can talk circles around him. That is why when he is right he actually just says "okay" and leaves (I call him out on this). Or he gets irritable. He can argue with other men but fascinatingly with women he gets trapped and stuck. Not because of lack of subject matter knowledge but because he works with words too slowly, he doesn't use them in a fine enough way. He is trying to do surgery with a butcher knife in these arguments. So he would prefer not to argue hot topics with women at all. This is a smart, secure guy. He just doesn't enjoy debating with someone who can argue him under a table, like I don't enjoy playing basketball with him because he is so much better than I know he's letting me whenever I get a basket.

 

No wonder IT boys are unable to tolerate girls in the environment.

 

So in my opinion, a big part of getting girls ahead in STEM is getting boys ahead in the arts and making them capable of dealing with girls. We cannot have a situation where boys are digging in and hunkering down to protect their "safe" spot, and to get in girls have to endure attacks. There must be a better way. I think we can close the gaps to a large degree for boys and girls, but it involves getting girls outdoors and boys talking. Why?

 

Because to do otherwise reinforces trapping, crippling stereotypes.

 

I wonder if that's one reason why DD has found herpetology a fairly accepting place to be a girl (and why there seem to be a good number of female PhDs in leadership positions in the various organizations)-that herpetologists, almost as a one, at least start out as kids who love being outside in nature, splashing in creeks, flipping rocks, and catching animals. And since a big part of the herp world that kids can get involved in quite easily is as the volunteer educator (zoo and nature center docents, local herp groups that do presentations for schools, etc) that would tend to build communications skills as well.

 

I just hope undergrad doesn't drive it out of her...I've heard a LOT of horror stories of everything from just plain boredom to outright hostility towards female undergrads in bio majors, especially in schools where pretty much everyone is trying to get into med school.

[Tsuga]

Hm. Biology is one area where there is actually male-female parity. It's the first inroad to the sciences.

 

But though I know your DD loves bio right now, really, she might change. :)

 

(I hated science because of its lack of questioning... I have always wondered if you have to take a test to prove that you have no intellectual curiosity but only a desire to get an A, in order to work and/or continue in education beyond 5th grade... luckily it seems there are some exceptions.)

[Barb_]

I am not sure it means we are doing anything wrong with the girls...(snip)

But, she doesn't like math, even though it is easy. She LOVES words and languages. There is no failure in her not pursuing anything math related. It is simply preference. Now, if she wanted to pursue something in math and was discouraged simply bc she possesses two Xs, that would be a failure. But based on physiology, it really isn't surprising to see the gender differences

:)

I was going to say something similar. I have two girls who find Math easy and understandable but aren't consumed by it the way my son seems to be in spite of his bluster :)

 

When my son was a toddler, he would kiss numbers he saw on signs or address plates. My daughters were never number kissers.

[Barb_]

I wonder if that's one reason why DD has found herpetology a fairly accepting place to be a girl (and why there seem to be a good number of female PhDs in leadership positions in the various organizations)-that herpetologists, almost as a one, at least start out as kids who love being outside in nature, splashing in creeks, flipping rocks, and catching animals. And since a big part of the herp world that kids can get involved in quite easily is as the volunteer educator (zoo and nature center docents, local herp groups that do presentations for schools, etc) that would tend to build communications skills as well.

 

I just hope undergrad doesn't drive it out of her...I've heard a LOT of horror stories of everything from just plain boredom to outright hostility towards female undergrads in bio majors, especially in schools where pretty much everyone is trying to get into med school.

I have a bio major and a neuroscience major and they've not had that experience. Well except for this one professor who was really hostile to my older daughter and told her she needed more FOCUS because she was too interdisciplinary. She should stop trying to connect her research to other disciplines or she would never get accepted to a phd program. He was wrong :)

[Tsuga]

I was going to say something similar. I have two girls who find Math easy and understandable but aren't consumed by it the way my son seems to be in spite of his bluster :)

 

When my son was a toddler, he would kiss numbers he saw on signs or address plates. My daughters were never number kissers.

 

 

Obviously not all girls will love math.

 

Not all boys do.

 

 loved numbers and they told me to teach English. :(

 

It's anecdotes like these that contribute to stereotypes that are unfounded. Girls' expression of a love of math is often done in a different way due to socialization (if a girl says she loves math she will be given more work). Also, girls are often more competent at reading for MANY reasons--not all inborn. This means they don't find refuge in math as often. They read more.

 

Why would I want to change this?

 

Because I care deeply about every child fulfilling his or her full potential and the idea that a girl would be pushed out of math because she's also good at English; a boy not learn to enjoy literature because he is usually behind in reading because he's let outdoors more while girls are kept indoors; I could go on. We start early and we push gender HARD. "Annie, stop hitting, that's not nice!" "Oh, boys are so physical!" "Hey buddy, catch!" "Look Annie, a dolly."

 

 

 

The reason there are so few male English teachers could be expressed in the inverse... maybe I'll make a comic.

[Barb_]

Obviously not all girls will love math.

 

Not all boys do.

 

 loved numbers and they told me to teach English. :(

 

It's anecdotes like these that contribute to stereotypes that are unfounded. Girls' expression of a love of math is often done in a different way due to socialization (if a girl says she loves math she will be given more work). Also, girls are often more competent at reading for MANY reasons--not all inborn. This means they don't find refuge in math as often. They read more.

 

Why would I want to change this?

 

Because I care deeply about every child fulfilling his or her full potential and the idea that a girl would be pushed out of math because she's also good at English; a boy not learn to enjoy literature because he is usually behind in reading because he's let outdoors more while girls are kept indoors; I could go on. We start early and we push gender HARD. "Annie, stop hitting, that's not nice!" "Oh, boys are so physical!" "Hey buddy, catch!" "Look Annie, a dolly."

 

I'm sorry you were steered away from Math.  That sucks.  I was steered away from Science myself.  But if either of my daughters LOVED numbers the way my son does, I would have been all over it.  As it was, the oldest went all the way through Calc III in high school with straight A's. She majored in Bio but took Diff-eq and Linear Algebra for fun.  She burned out on in though, as she went to a state U where most of the Math classes were taught by instructors who spoke little English.  She decided she didn't love it enough to push through the barriers...Bio she did.

 

The other daughter LOVED math concepts. She loved talking about Math, playing around with Math.  She scored so high on her Math placement that the head of the Mathematics department of her University courted her heavily, hoping to convince her to major in Math.  *I* nudged her because I felt like she may have even been a more talented math student than my older daughter.  She went into Neuroscience and Comp Sci because she is interested in so many problems that aren't of a mathematical nature.  She simply prefers other fields to Math.Really, you don't know for sure that you loved numbers enough to have gone all the way through a major yourself.  Maybe you would have, but maybe you would have had the same experience as my daughers.  Majoring in Math is all Math.  It can be boring and fairly limiting if you love things other than math.

 

My son, even though he's only 9, has always had an affinity for numbers that goes beyond simply being good at math.  He gets jazzed by numbers the way my older daughter used to get jazzed by birds and mice and insects and the way my younger one got jazzed about linguistics and languages, and what makes people tick.  I've just always thougt it was funny the way he used to kiss numbers (and cars, for that matter) as a baby.  He felt actual AFFECTION for them the way other babies wan to cuddle puppies.  I could see this kid chucking all other avenues to completely immerse himself in math.  Who knows? 

 

I do think that in general, boys who are good at math tend to love to get involved in Math contests of skill and speed in greater numbers than girls do, and I don't think it's necessarily something that must be "fixed." It could be that math contests appeal to a smaller number of girls than boys, regardless of skill level.  It may be that they're socialized to avoid contests generally.  Or maybe they are hard wired to have more fun sitting around and exploring concepts and brainstorming co-operatively or leading discussions with their peers. Maybe if we held Math symposiums where people could talk about math and expolore math and work through complicated problems with their intellectual peers, we'd attract more females. Females *do* have stronger language skills and in general are more language driven. Math culture doesn't encourage the verbal exploration on which the majority of many females thrive.  THIS may be what is driving women away.

[Barb_]

Hm. Biology is one area where there is actually male-female parity. It's the first inroad to the sciences.

 

But though I know your DD loves bio right now, really, she might change. :)

 

(I hated science because of its lack of questioning... I have always wondered if you have to take a test to prove that you have no intellectual curiosity but only a desire to get an A, in order to work and/or continue in education beyond 5th grade... luckily it seems there are some exceptions.)

 

I'm totally confused by this post. What does first inroad mean in this context?  Are you saying that Biology is somehow inferior because it isn't male dominated?  My daughter loves Biology because she has a degree in Biology and has been working in her field for three years and has been accepted to a PhD program in Biology. She isn't going to change. I'm proud of her and I can't quite figure it out, but it sounds like you're belittling her accomplishments?  Because? 

 

I also wish you'd elaborate on your final parenthetical statement.  The syntax is eluding me.  Also the opinion that there is no questioning in Science. Really? 

[Greenmama2]

I think girls are massively encouraged but I always worry about biology. Teen girls (most of them) want to be liked by boys. Young men are in a vulnerable state as well and often fear girls who are smarter than them in math, mainly because it's a rare boy who can out-talk a girl, no matter what their intelligence (this is also socialization). My partner has told me that it can be frustrating for him because although I think we are evenly matched in our abstract reasoning, my verbal ability is way, way higher. Partly because of my personality, partly socialization, and I'd be lying if I said I thought none of it came from hormones. (Just like his ability to be competitive and play touch sports comes somewhat from hormones....)

 

So I can talk circles around him. That is why when he is right he actually just says "okay" and leaves (I call him out on this). Or he gets irritable. He can argue with other men but fascinatingly with women he gets trapped and stuck. Not because of lack of subject matter knowledge but because he works with words too slowly, he doesn't use them in a fine enough way. He is trying to do surgery with a butcher knife in these arguments. So he would prefer not to argue hot topics with women at all. This is a smart, secure guy. He just doesn't enjoy debating with someone who can argue him under a table, like I don't enjoy playing basketball with him because he is so much better than I know he's letting me whenever I get a basket.

 

No wonder IT boys are unable to tolerate girls in the environment.

 

So in my opinion, a big part of getting girls ahead in STEM is getting boys ahead in the arts and making them capable of dealing with girls. We cannot have a situation where boys are digging in and hunkering down to protect their "safe" spot, and to get in girls have to endure attacks. There must be a better way. I think we can close the gaps to a large degree for boys and girls, but it involves getting girls outdoors and boys talking. Why?

 

Because to do otherwise reinforces trapping, crippling stereotypes.

 

Whilst I don't really agree about hormones, I think this is quite insightful and that you might be on to something. I can empathise with your husband. I struggle with words, at least verbally. I can write a killer paper when I need to but I've never once gotten a job from an interview unless I was already a shoo in & I certainly cannot sell things. Verbal communication is really not a strength for me, whereas it is for my husband and I admit I am guilty of saying okay/sure/whatever and walking away when I know I am right but the argument is too difficult. I also tend to nod & smile a lot when people talk at me about things I disagree with.

 

[Tsuga]

 

 

boys who are good at math tend to love to get involved in Math contests of skill and speed in greater numbers than girls do, and I don't think it's necessarily something that must be "fixed."

 

But if it is all boys, can you see how that would snowball and make it an unwelcoming environment for girls, particularly in the middle and high school level?

 

For the record, I support separate girls and boys math competitions for this reason.

 

It sounds like your daughters are doing great--that must be a great feeling as a mom!

 

 

 

 

Whilst I don't really agree about hormones

 

It is just something I threw out there because I don't know the reason for the discrepancy. I really don't.

 

I do know that it pisses me off when I can see that he disagrees and he is too afraid to start a discussion so he agrees, because I know that he will get me later by either just not doing the thing. My ex would have brought it up as something he did, like as a favor--my partner does not. I still don't get why they didn't just say: I disagree. Here are the reasons. Here are things I'm not compromising on (my kids' well-being, a pre-existing agreement with someone else, etc.) Here's where I can compromise. What about you?

 

I even wrote down this framework--like, here is how you stand up for yourself in a polite, friendly way that is assertive, not passive, and not aggressive, and not passive-aggressive (worst of both worlds). He has placated me by at least moving to, "I disagree but I'm not interested in discussing it now. I will let you know when I'm ready." At least that's honest! And probably more fair for him.

[IsabelC]

Obviously not all girls will love math.

 

Not all boys do.

 

 loved numbers and they told me to teach English. :(

 

It's anecdotes like these that contribute to stereotypes that are unfounded. Girls' expression of a love of math is often done in a different way due to socialization (if a girl says she loves math she will be given more work). Also, girls are often more competent at reading for MANY reasons--not all inborn. This means they don't find refuge in math as often. They read more.

 

Why would I want to change this?

 

Because I care deeply about every child fulfilling his or her full potential and the idea that a girl would be pushed out of math because she's also good at English; a boy not learn to enjoy literature because he is usually behind in reading because he's let outdoors more while girls are kept indoors; I could go on. We start early and we push gender HARD. "Annie, stop hitting, that's not nice!" "Oh, boys are so physical!" "Hey buddy, catch!" "Look Annie, a dolly."

 

 

 

The reason there are so few male English teachers could be expressed in the inverse... maybe I'll make a comic.

 

***LOVE LOVE LOVE***

(sorry, but the forum didn't allow me to Like on the post)

[daijobu]

But if it is all boys, can you see how that would snowball and make it an unwelcoming environment for girls, particularly in the middle and high school level?

 

For the record, I support separate girls and boys math competitions for this reason.

 

 

 

This.  I agree with this.  I have daughters who are hyper-sensitive to how they fit in socially.  Fortunately, they've been homeschooled since preschool, so I was able to grow their math skills to the point they are now reasonably competent in math competitions, BEFORE they had a chance to figure out this is a game for nerdy boys.  (I mean from their perspective.)   They haven't been socialized to dislike math, and now they are good enough that they as they leave middle school, I'm hoping they'll have the strength to not care what others think.    Sadly, they still care intensely what others think, so I've only been able to cope by keeping them away for circumstances (ie school) where they are actively judged.  

 

I'll never forget the time a couple of years ago when my dd emerged from the testing room after the AMC 8 and she proudly crowed, "I was the only white girl there!"  Where are all the white girls?  

[Tsuga]

My daughter said AMC8 was for boys. "No honey, anyone can!"

 

"Mom. Only boys do it. That's what I mean."

 

I just about cried.

[eternalsummer]

Well,

1.  Different races have different strengths both culturally and biologically.

2.  Different genders have different strengths both culturally and biologically.  

 

Evolution is a beautiful thing :)  

[daijobu]

My daughter said AMC8 was for boys. "No honey, anyone can!"

 

"Mom. Only boys do it. That's what I mean."

 

I just about cried.

 

A few years ago my dd was telling me how something wasn't cool.  Maybe it was math or something similar.  And I was mystified.  Here was a girl who had never been to school, I limited her media (no iCarly or any of that), so I asked her, "How in the world do you know what is cool and what isn't cool?"  

 

"Books!"

 

Gah.

[Arcadia]

 so I asked her, "How in the world do you know what is cool and what isn't cool?"  

 

"Books!"

 

Gah.

 

Some librarians tend to recommend "princess/fairies books" to girls without asking what the children like to read.  Most are good at asking what the child's interest are but I have heard many moms answer princesses while the children tend to give varied answers that may not include princess.

 

ETA:

Older read all the princess and fairies books in the library when he ran out of books to read :lol:

[quark]

.

[quark]

(thank you for the likes...but this was too much of a sidetrack...sorry)

[mathwonk]

Random reactions to an interesting discussion:

 

Probably everyone can recall being discouraged from something he/she liked either by being poor at it, or feeling they were poor compared to someone else, or just via stereotyping.  

 

I once watched two siblings interact over artwork.  One enjoyed it and did well until the other appeared to be more gifted and to do better with less effort - that stopped the first ones attempts cold. In another case a boy was learning a martial art and practicing and enjoying it until he showed his new skills to a friend who had studied since early childhood.  When the friend demonstrated in no uncertain terms a superior mastery, the first boy never went back to the dojo.  Another youngster enjoyed writing poems so good his peers sometimes thought he had copied them from books, until an English major pointed out some naive qualities.  He apparently never wrote another poem in his life.

 

Even among professionals, I have seen competitive snarky comments, cruel and insulting ones delivered in public.  But by this time most people still in the game have learned to ignore them, or to rebound from them, and continue, possibly by retreating to a quiet place to work alone, until mastery is achieved.  E.g. if they have done even one commendable work, they can take solace in that memory and tell themselves they do have some ability after all, and that the criticisms are likely based in envy, or from a vague sense of threat, and insecurity.  Some people are not happy to be good, they want to feel they are better than someone else.

 

So I think competitive, or envious, attacks of discouragement, and occasions where we feel out of our depth, or of our comfort zone, are to be expected in life.  The task is to figure out mechanisms to stop the hurtful result of stifling the creative impulse.  It is probably not always possible to shield someone from these challenges, but maybe segregated activity, at least until one acquires confidence, or just a careful nurturing environment, can help.  Sometimes all it takes is someone to say "you can do this."

[JeanM]

I just read an article in the NY Times (How Elementary School Teachers' Biases Can Discourage Girls From Math And Science) that is interesting. One thing they mention is an Israeli study that looked at three groups of students from sixth grade through the end of high school. The students were given two tests, one scored anonymously, the other scored by teachers who knew the students' names. The boys scored higher than the girls on the math portion when the teachers knew the students' names (and presumably they could tell gender from the first names), but that didn't happen when the exams were scored anonymously. Interestingly they didn't see the same effect in other subjects, like English and Hebrew.

 

They also looked at the same students years later, and they concluded that the girls who had been discouraged by their teachers were much less likely than the boys to take advanced math and science courses.

 

Honestly I find that very sad.

[IsabelC]

Some librarians tend to recommend "princess/fairies books" to girls without asking what the children like to read.  Most are good at asking what the child's interest are but I have heard many moms answer princesses while the children tend to give varied answers that may not include princess.

 

 

 

Yep, gender expectations can be extremely strong.

 

We once had a conversation that went pretty much like this:

Dentist (getting out free toothbrushes): What color would you like?

Child: Um, purple please.

Dentist: You like pink, don't you?

Child: I don't like pink.

Dentist: Oh, there don't seem to be any pink ones, I'll have to look over here.

Parent (me): She doesn't really like pink, purple would be fine. Or green.

Dentist: Ah, here's a pink one. Little girls always want pink, don't they?

Parent: ... Say thank you.

Child: Thank you (on the way back to the car) WHY am I only allowed to have pink?

[Tsuga]

Yep, gender expectations can be extremely strong.

 

We once had a conversation that went pretty much like this:

Dentist (getting out free toothbrushes): What color would you like?

Child: Um, purple please.

Dentist: You like pink, don't you?

Child: I don't like pink.

Dentist: Oh, there don't seem to be any pink ones, I'll have to look over here.

Parent (me): She doesn't really like pink, purple would be fine. Or green.

Dentist: Ah, here's a pink one. Little girls always want pink, don't they?

Parent: ... Say thank you.

Child: Thank you (on the way back to the car) WHY am I only allowed to have pink?

 

Dental assistant did the same with my daughter. "Which princess do you like more?"

 

DD2 was silent. Dental assistant lists the princesses. (Oh but you just KNOW that girls like princesses genetically, right y'all? That's how they all know them. Right? Can't be helped? Nothing whatsoever to do with crap like this. Grrr.)

 

Finally I piped up. "She likes Mickey Mouse." DD2's face just lights up. She LOVES Mickey Mouse. He's so friendly.

 

Dental assistant asks if she likes Minnie too.

 

GAHHHH. Why. She said, "Okay..."

 

But it's genetic, not at all societal. No influence of society whatsoever.  :thumbdown:

[Tsuga]

Well,

1.  Different races have different strengths both culturally and biologically.

2.  Different genders have different strengths both culturally and biologically.  

 

Evolution is a beautiful thing :)

 

Care to define "race" scientifically? Thanks so much.

[eternalsummer]

Care to define "race" scientifically? Thanks so much.

 

Can you define "thanks" scientifically?

 

There is more to truth and understanding than what can be defined merely by science.

 

But anyway, let's not get bogged down by semantics, eh?  You can call it ethnicity or whatever you like.

 

The point is simple - there are different groups of people who have evolved over time in different environments to have different physical and intellectual characteristics - different strengths and weaknesses.

 

For example, speaking of races, you will note that of the top 25 fastest sprint times in the world, every single one of them is held by an individual of African extraction;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres#All-time_top_25_men

 

Would you say that's a coincidence?

 

By the way, you must oppose race-based affirmative action, eh?  It would be silly to support a program based on something that doesn't exist.

[eternalsummer]

Btw, the top 25 sprint times in the world also happen to be all men.

[eternalsummer]

But it's genetic, not at all societal. No influence of society whatsoever.  :thumbdown:

 

Where do you think society comes from?  Fairy land?

 

Society is a biological construct.

[mathwonk]

Interestingly, it seems the top 224 fastest 100m times are all by men at least partially of African extraction, and the 225th fastest time is shared by one Caucasian male's performance (Christian Lemaitre of France) and 25 performances by males of African extraction.  Performances by the same individual are however counted multiple times (some 25 of these times are by Usain Bolt of Jamaica, e.g)  It is also true that the overwhelming majority of these times are by residents of Jamaica or the United States, compared to the tiny minority from either Europe or Africa.

 

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm

 

It is also apparently true that the difference between the fastest 100m men's and women's times in history is about 91/100 ths of a second.  (and both are at least 3 seconds faster than I recall as my own high school time, even for 100 yds.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres

 

 

I am also old enough to recall a time when some 100% of all US football quarterbacks were Caucasian.

 

but I digress.  This thread has caused me to conclude that a teacher's main job, is not (as I sometimes thought) to provide the highest level content, but rather to motivate and encourage.

[Tsuga]

Where do you think society comes from?  Fairy land?

 

Society is a biological construct.

 

The Fairy Land comment is not necessary.

 

You are confusing contingent and necessary states of affairs.

 

Just because biology is a cause of how things are, does not mean that it could not have caused something else to happen. As it happens, the laws of physics resulted in the one moon rotating around the earth. However, to suggest that it could not have been otherwise because of these laws is quite a statement, one that few physicists or philosophers are willing to make.

 

Life appears to many of us even more probabilistic and indeterminate. Just because biological processes ended up with me here and not a slightly different other person, does not mean I could not have been different even given all of the main biological processes. Perhaps if my mother and father had been runners at the time, because of a school running program, I would have been a boy. (That is just an example of randomness at work, not a suggestion that running has a specific effect on the sex of babies but who knows.)

 

This underlines two things: 1, that the environment shapes biology, and not always in ways that you would expect, and 2, the way the world is is contingent.

 

But even if we concede that things are how they are due to biology and could not have been otherwise, which I think is a ridiculous claim, you must realize that when people talk about society they are not talking about it as if it were descended from some Platonic heaven. We are keenly aware that this is all due to a complex interaction between different species and non-living forces. That does not mean that our social and personal choices do not affect how things come about.

 

For example, it may have been perfectly possible for there to be less gender dimorphism between male and female humans. But let us say that once the ball got rolling, some environmental factor (say, a freak genetic gift that made one guy huge) allowed one man to get a whole bunch of women, forcing other men into competition. This accelerated the dimorphism because the women weren't competing. And so on. But let us say that at the same time, a biological phenomenon of making women do complicated calculations and spatial tasks like cooking and sewing were going on, but all the while women were told that they were stupid. Just because aggression is some byproduct of whatever makes someone a good fighter. Now telling women they are stupid is not in any way caused by the women's stupidity, but it affects their behavior. Is this a biological phenomenon? Yes. Is this necessary? If you insist, sure, oppression of women, as a biological phenomenon, might be necessary. But even in that case, there is some sense in saying, "this is a social phenomenon" because that distinguishes it (what happens based on behavior that comes from the brain) from a "biological" phenomenon, something that would come to pass even if the behavior in question were stopped completely for some random environmental reason.

 

This is an EXAMPLE. You can, I hope, generalize from it to think of other situations in which arbitrary environmental factors could affect a person's actions in such a way as to effect biological changes that were not directly genetically determined.

 

And even if we say, "all social phenomena are biological phenomena and biology is physics and physics is necessary" (the last bit being arguably false), I can say, "Yeah but I believe that the social phenomena which determined behavior in the past are going to change, and moreover, I believe that there is potential in each human being--latent, there in their genes--to achieve FAR more than they are currently allowed to achieve, and I don't care if my typing this out is a result of billions of years of physical chain reactions that could not have been otherwise, I'm going to do that."

 

And it could happen.

 

Guns, Germs, and Steel, by the way, is a great book if you're interested to learn about how environment can shape behavior which shapes biology which shapes behavior.

 

As for running times--funny, because Jamaica is extremely genetically diverse.

 

Maybe it's the culture...?

[IsabelC]

Loved Guns, Germs and Steel!

[eternalsummer]

Interestingly, it seems the top 224 fastest 100m times are all by men at least partially of African extraction...

 

I am also old enough to recall a time when some 100% of all US football quarterbacks were Caucasian.

 

Right, the NFL is a good example for several reasons.  First, there was a time in the past when the NFL excluded African Americans entirely, not just at quarterback.  The fact that there are intrinsic differences in ability does not mean discrimination doesn't exist, and vice versa.  Today the NFL is approximately 68% African American.

 

Second, the fact that there are intrinsic differences in ability in some things does not mean there are necessarily differences in all things.  The position tight end, for example, is roughly split between whites and African Americans; however, "there are currently no white cornerbacks in the NFL and there have not been since New York Giants and St. Louis Rams cornerback Jason Sehorn retired in 2003, and even Sehorn had converted to safety by the end of his career.^[29][36]"

 

On the other hand, "in other skill positions, 23 of the 32 starting quarterbacks in the NFL were white at the start of the 2013 season, with only one black starting kicker among the 32 NFL rosters."

[eternalsummer]

My responses in blue.

 

The Fairy Land comment is not necessary.

 

Yes it was.

 

Just because biology is a cause of how things are, does not mean that it could not have caused something else to happen. As it happens, the laws of physics resulted in the one moon rotating around the earth. However, to suggest that it could not have been otherwise because of these laws is quite a statement, one that few physicists or philosophers are willing to make.

 

No, that's exactly what the laws of physics mean - what exists is what has been determined to exist.  "It" could not have been "otherwise" because "otherwise" does not exist.  The thing speaks for itself.

 

Perhaps if my mother and father had been runners at the time, because of a school running program, I would have been a boy.

 

You're saying, "if the universe had been determined differently, then I would have been determined differently."  It goes without saying.  But you're only speaking hypothetically, in theory.  In theory, with a different set of parameters, anything is possible.  Meanwhile, here in reality...

 

But even if we concede that things are how they are due to biology and could not have been otherwise, which I think is a ridiculous claim, you must realize that when people talk about society they are not talking about it as if it were descended from some Platonic heaven. We are keenly aware that this is all due to a complex interaction between different species and non-living forces. That does not mean that our social and personal choices do not affect how things come about.

 

Our social and personal choices are determined biologically and physically (according to the laws of the universe) too.  Complexity of interaction (eg. second and third order effect) is a given.  Those effects are no less determined; the fact that we can't see all the "strings" doesn't mean they're not there.

 

"Yeah but I believe that the social phenomena which determined behavior in the past are going to change..."

 

Environments change.  So does the weather.  There's still nothing "arbitrary" or "random" about it.  "The more things change, the more they stay the same".  The laws of physics do not change.

 

As for running times--funny, because Jamaica is extremely genetically diverse.

 

All the top Jamaican running times were from individuals of African extraction.

 

[Tsuga]

nm

Edited February 10, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer

[eternalsummer]

nm 

 

Edited February 10, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer

[lewelma]

This thread has caused me to conclude that a teacher's main job, is not (as I sometimes thought) to provide the highest level content, but rather to motivate and encourage.

I agree completely. I have found that tutoring maths is at least 50% psychology. They have to believe they can do it, and want to do it. And it is my job to convince them of both these things. Only at that point can real learning take place in an efficient way.

[Tsuga]

nm 

 

Edited February 10, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
This was unacceptably snarky.

[eternalsummer]

nm 

 

Edited February 10, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
This personal attack is unacceptable.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Ananemone, Binip,

 

Please abandon this thread and take whatever issues remain to PM. 

 

SWB

[JDoe]

Interestingly, I have found that the Chinese and Indian immigrants that I have known have moved to NZ because of the lack of competition.  In NZ, you can *be* someone; which is simply not true in their home countries.  My Indian friend told me he moved to NZ to give his kids a better life; that in India you could be a 1 in a 1000 applicant for a great job and you will still have only a 1 in a 1000 chance of getting it.  My Chinese friend told me that she moved to NZ to get her kids out of the rat race that is their school system. So I am wondering if NZ gets a different set of Asian/Indian immigrants than America does, immigrants with subtly different goals for their kids.  And keep in mind that NZ does not have a lottery system for some of the immigration slots like America does -- entrance here is all based on 'points' that you earn by being educated, experienced, rich, young, and in a job where there are shortage of workers.

 

When you realize that the ones outcompeting everyone in the west are the asian "slackers" some alarm bells should start going off in the western educational systems  

[mathwonk]

 I actually have a lot of confidence in the future of our country and its level of technical expertise, even if it depends largely on immigrants.  And this comes from a guy raised in the 1950's in the american south by somewhat untraveled parents, and who still realized an international career in scientific research.  Maybe I should thank Jack Kennedy for the merit scholar funding.

[Sahamamama]

FWIW, I got a lot of that even as music history/musicology major. My saxophone professor told me flat out that he'd never seen a woman complete an academic music path at that particular university (and I ended up eventually getting my final degree in education, not in musicology) and suggested that if I wanted to be a musicologist, I should transfer elsewhere. Because ultimately, I was going to face a lot harder path as a woman than I would if I were a man. When I switched to education, humorously doing research that strongly overlapped what I'd been doing as a music major (and with many of the same people still on my committee), where women were a major part of the department, suddenly the critiques.became much more constructive and much less destructive.

 

One thing that I loved last summer at the conference was seeing just how many female herpetologists/ichthyologists there are out there at all levels. And she got a very, very warm and supportive welcome from the female herpetologists at all levels. One of the moms of one of the high school pre-bac students commented that her son mostly got ignored and allowed to blend into the background, while DD had someone coming up to talk to her almost constantly. Part of that, I'm sure, is that her age makes her a lot more noticable, but part of it was, I think, these women seeing a chance to encourage a girl in a world that isn't always friendly.

 

I think in the US South, part of the absence of girls, and especially of girls who aren't from families recently immigrated from Asia or Eastern Europe in math competitions is that there's a definite aura of "girls don't compete with boys". My mother relates tales of being told that she shouldn't take a job from a man who needed one to support his family, and I think that still holds to a degree. So girls' sports can be completely, utterly and totally competitive, but when something is co-ed, the girls just seem to fold. In academics, there are certain areas girls are allowed to excel in-Writing, for example, but math and science are considered male domains. It was the case when I was in school-and I was in a magnet program for math/science. There were about the same number of girls/boys accepted into the specialized program-but invariably, when you looked at the kids who did the academic competitions, it was very gender divided.

 

And I got a lot of that same attitude when I graduated from seminary, even within a denomination (actually, a "cooperative fellowship") that on paper supported women in ministry positions. The prevailing sentiment seemed to be, "If you are willing to do unpaid inner-city ministry with chemically-addicted, HIV-positive, homeless and mentally ill pregnant teenagers, then we have a place for you. Otherwise, you can raise your own financial support and do the same thing in Africa." This, after years of hearing the empty rhetoric of needing "workers for the harvest...."

 

There were only openings in places where men were unwilling to go. I knew of at least two female colleagues who, at great personal sacrifice, planted a church or rebuilt a dead church, and moved their church along to a place of health and viability. At that point, the male leadership structure pressured those women to "turn over" their churches, in order to give a male pastor a position with a salary. I am not making this up.

 

I actually had more opportunities to serve when I was a volunteer, as well as when I was younger. Probably at that point, I wasn't seen as a "threat." But by the time I was in my late twenties/early thirties, and seeking a full-fledged ministry position, God suddenly somehow didn't need me as much.

 

Apparently, the only acceptable route for a woman to be "in ministry" is to marry a pastor. In my twenties and thirties, people openly told me this. "Why don't you just go over to _____ Bible College and get a husband? Seminary is for men."

 

To understand how much of a shock this was for me at the time, you'd have to know how often we were told in our church that women had a place in ministry. I never expected to run into a wall. But I did.

[mathwonk]

sahamamama, have you watched the Ingrid Bergman movie: Inn of the 6th happiness?

[kubiac]

I had an experience in high school that made me wonder if male brains might be inclined to process math differently from female. I was one of the top students in terms of mathematical problem solving, at least based on exams like the current AMC10 (I think it was AHSME?) and its follow on (I didn't do well in math classes at all, but that was primarily due to executive function challenges). I remember asking another top math student (male) to explain how he solved something to me once and finding it nearly impossible to follow his explanation. He manipulated symbols as if the symbols themselves were all that was needed, whereas to me I had to translate all the symbols into something linguistically meaningful in order to process them. I think his method was more visually based and mine was more verbally based. We could both solve the problems, but our approach was different. Possibly for related reasons, I found math classes taught be female teachers easier to follow than those taught be males.

 

I have no idea whether that is a common experience.

 

 

My dad was an engineer; he says the only way he ever really grokked language arts was through diagramming sentences, which turned them into solvable coded equations that he could process more easily, which sounds like the other side of what you are describing.

[kubiac]

If I may venture a guess, I suspect that in some Asian cultures, it is considered unacceptable to not be math-y, so they do a lot to shore up the "weaknesses" of their average kids.  So by US standards, because some are naturally mathy and others are "remediated" a lot, the whole population seems to be above average in that area.  In the US, we accept that some kids are not into certain things, and when we have a kid who isn't, we aim to remediate up to the average US level, not way above it.  (In general.)

 

 

From Laura Overdeck's TED Talk: "We never hear adults say, 'I'm just not good at reading. I just can't do that.' But it is perfectly acceptable to say, 'I can't do math.' "

 

I don't know if "naturally mathy" exists or not, but I do know that the American belief in "natural aptitude" over "persistent work" in determining math skill probably serves us very very poorly in this domain.

[8circles]

 

From Laura Overdeck's TED Talk: "We never hear adults say, 'I'm just not good at reading. I just can't do that.' But it is perfectly acceptable to say, 'I can't do math.' "

 

I don't know if "naturally mathy" exists or not, but I do know that the American belief in "natural aptitude" over "persistent work" in determining math skill probably serves us very very poorly in this domain.

I've heard adults talk about not being strong readers and many many more who say they don't enjoy reading at all or it puts them to sleep.

[IsabelC]

I have more than once heard adults state that they aren't good at reading. Obviously YMMV, but IME the difference is that adults tend to feel more or less ashamed of their limited reading ability, whereas with numeracy, on the other hand, some people can sound almost proud of their 'non-mathiness'. Similarly, almost all parents take some sort of active measures to encourage their children's reading, while it's less usual to see any numeracy encouragement past teaching the child to count. It's as though math is only for the elite, while reading is for everybody.
 

WRT 'naturally mathy', my uneducated guess would be that it does exist, but it's irrelevant to most people, because it only makes a difference at the very highest level. Many people couldn't sit down and write a symphony, but almost everyone can succeed at playing a musical instrument if they have the learning resources and are willing to practice it. I hypothesize that math is the same story: many people couldn't create new mathematical theories, but almost everyone can succeed in mastering school math if they have the learning resources and are willing to practice it. And like with most pursuits, it helps if you can get some enjoyment out of it. We all know that reading can be fun and playing music can be fun, but not so many people believe that math can be fun (curriculum materials often claim to 'make math fun', but often that consists of adding 'fun' elements that aren't really part of the arithmetic, such as cartoon illustrations).

[lewelma]

WRT 'naturally mathy', my uneducated guess would be that it does exist, but it's irrelevant to most people, because it only makes a difference at the very highest level.

 

Recently, I told my ds that he had some innate talent and he was kind of put off.  He has always thought that he has gotten as far as he has through sheer effort alone, and didn't really appreciate me implying that there was some genetics in there.  This week he has done more than 25 hours of maths, so I can see his point. Kind of interesting, though, his thinking that he is average in natural ability and has only risen to the top by his personal effort.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Arcadia]

Kind of interesting, though, his thinking that he is average in natural ability and has only risen to the top by his personal effort.

Reminds me of the recent Reference Points thread :)