Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Told reading tests are a game, boys score higher
http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-boys-beat-girls-in-reading-1462202491
193 comments
I was a kid in post-communist Poland in 90s, and the concept of nerd was absent as well. Being good at math etc was not a problem to your social life (in fact it was sth you could brag about, just not too openly because that's uncool too).
Also there was almost no "jocks" (there were some sport competitions but no cheerleaders, and nothing as important culturally as it is in USA, also teams weren't persistent between classes and there were almost none inter-school sport events).
Grades were public as well (or at least - nobody tried to hide them so teachers would just pin a list with results from an exam on the board). Competition was seen as sth natural (at the time unemployment was 20% and kids were told that you have to be good or you will essentially be a hobo).
On the other hand you were supposed to pretend you didn't had to study a lot, because kids that study instead of playing were "kujon"s = boring, lame bookworms. It was cool to be smart without working for it.
Also cheating had no stigma attached, but telling any authority about any misbehaving was the ultimate social suicide. This obviously included telling teachers that other kids were cheating.
This was probably because 50 years of paid spying of citizens on each other by abusive government. Even now whistleblowing in general is hard because of that social stigma.
Nerd and geek concept was introduced later through movies and internet and in mid 00s it was already established, but still not a negative stereotype (but that may be because I changed environment to CS-related in the meantime and ~ everybody was a nerd/geek/whatever).
Also there was almost no "jocks" (there were some sport competitions but no cheerleaders, and nothing as important culturally as it is in USA, also teams weren't persistent between classes and there were almost none inter-school sport events).
Grades were public as well (or at least - nobody tried to hide them so teachers would just pin a list with results from an exam on the board). Competition was seen as sth natural (at the time unemployment was 20% and kids were told that you have to be good or you will essentially be a hobo).
On the other hand you were supposed to pretend you didn't had to study a lot, because kids that study instead of playing were "kujon"s = boring, lame bookworms. It was cool to be smart without working for it.
Also cheating had no stigma attached, but telling any authority about any misbehaving was the ultimate social suicide. This obviously included telling teachers that other kids were cheating.
This was probably because 50 years of paid spying of citizens on each other by abusive government. Even now whistleblowing in general is hard because of that social stigma.
Nerd and geek concept was introduced later through movies and internet and in mid 00s it was already established, but still not a negative stereotype (but that may be because I changed environment to CS-related in the meantime and ~ everybody was a nerd/geek/whatever).
> On the other hand you were supposed to pretend you didn't had to study a lot, because kids that study instead of playing were "kujon"s = boring, lame bookworms. It was cool to be smart without working for it.
Yea, where I grew up there was also a term like "bookworm" which was used pejoratively, but it wasn't cause for social rejection, it was merely one of the myriad of ways that kids tease each other. It's not as though the "bookworm" was humiliated or bullied for being so. At least, that's how I remember it.
Yea, where I grew up there was also a term like "bookworm" which was used pejoratively, but it wasn't cause for social rejection, it was merely one of the myriad of ways that kids tease each other. It's not as though the "bookworm" was humiliated or bullied for being so. At least, that's how I remember it.
The fact that "nerd" is pejorative is linked to the way grades aren't read aloud.
The "nerd" pejorative isn't about doing well academically, it's more about bragging and obsessing. It's about making academic performance part of your identity. That's what people think is uncool. It's not like the quarterback loses points if he happens to be smart. He just shouldn't flaunt it or obsess about it.
The "nerd" pejorative isn't about doing well academically, it's more about bragging and obsessing. It's about making academic performance part of your identity. That's what people think is uncool. It's not like the quarterback loses points if he happens to be smart. He just shouldn't flaunt it or obsess about it.
Hm Im an American (and a Nerd) and that doesn't sound at all right to me. The N word is used to denigrate anyone who does well academically. Its used to shore up self-image for those that don't do well I imagine - "Sure Joe is great at this subject but that's Nerdy so Ha! I'm superior to him" There was never any need to brag, to be called a Nerd. Just score well, and the bullies would whisper (and yell in the hall) Nerd!
How did the bullies know Joe did well if he didn't brag?
Participation. Always having the right answers. Helping others. Spying the grades when papers are handed back. Never complaining about low grades. Showing no signs of stress or worry about exams. Asking questions for more information not already discussed or immediately relevant to the topic under consideration. The way a student carries on conversation. Being asked what grade s/he earned and divulging that information.
I went through many schools as a child. I never bragged about my grades. Everyone always picked up on me being a straight-A student very quickly.
I went through many schools as a child. I never bragged about my grades. Everyone always picked up on me being a straight-A student very quickly.
Praise from teachers. Other visible signals, like reading voluntarily, showing interest in challenging work, etc. I agree that bragging isn't really part of being a nerd.
Teachers talk in class when they shouldn't.
"Hey Teacher, how much is the curve on this test gonna be?"
"Well, it won't be anything because John got a 100."
[Angry glares at John]
"Hey Teacher, how much is the curve on this test gonna be?"
"Well, it won't be anything because John got a 100."
[Angry glares at John]
This idea contradicts the OPs' theory.
I don't think so. If the teacher announces everyone's grade formally, it makes it clear grade is important. If the teacher only points out the"Special" student that always does the best in every class, it becomes a miserable experience. And I assure you this part isn't an idea.
You go to a school where the grades are read out loud or published in some form.
This isn't unique to the Middle East. Its often no secret who the valedictorian of your class will be in my experience (American school)... even if the grades weren't revealed.
In any case, "Nerd" in my experience means something closer to the hobbies you persue. "Geeks" play video games and academically do good in "computer stuff" and music. "Nerds" pursue theater, LARP, and table-top RPGs (Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder, World of Darkness, etc.)
The intersection of "Nerds" and "Geeks" is anime, comic book heroes, and sci-fi.
This isn't unique to the Middle East. Its often no secret who the valedictorian of your class will be in my experience (American school)... even if the grades weren't revealed.
In any case, "Nerd" in my experience means something closer to the hobbies you persue. "Geeks" play video games and academically do good in "computer stuff" and music. "Nerds" pursue theater, LARP, and table-top RPGs (Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder, World of Darkness, etc.)
The intersection of "Nerds" and "Geeks" is anime, comic book heroes, and sci-fi.
> The intersection of "Nerds" and "Geeks" is anime, comic book heroes, and sci-fi.
Don't forget diminished desirability by those in whom one has a romantic interest (at least until well after adolescence). :)
Don't forget diminished desirability by those in whom one has a romantic interest (at least until well after adolescence). :)
Actually this is the "dork" vs. "nerd" distinction. People now self-identify as "nerd" as self-aggrandizing (annoying actual nerds[1]). Being called a Dork has always been an insult and pejorative. In my understanding, a Dork is a Nerd, but a Nerd is not necessarily a Dork -- unless so proclaimed by one or more so-called bullies.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJyMT4ZVQEc
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJyMT4ZVQEc
That would be a distinction lost on anyone who isnt prone to over analyzing the situation, not a hallmark of schoolyard bullies.
That might have been true 10,20 years ago. Don't know about now
When did HN become a place for trite generalizations? Do people really believe that every case of nerd shaming is the same? We can go on all day about school-teasing name-calling.
[deleted]
You describe the exact opposite of a game - you describe a competition.
How's a competition not a game?
A game needs to have no consequences outside the game. If there are consequences beyond the scope of the game, people aren't playing, they are seeking those other consequences, and the game is no longer strictly a game.
> Everyone knew everyone else's scores and they were often announced out loud as the results are handed back. Students who consistently get high scores are looked up to and respected. Your academic performance contributed significantly to your social standing in the classroom.
All of which, we know from empirical evidence, replace intrinsic motivations of play.
> Everyone knew everyone else's scores and they were often announced out loud as the results are handed back. Students who consistently get high scores are looked up to and respected. Your academic performance contributed significantly to your social standing in the classroom.
All of which, we know from empirical evidence, replace intrinsic motivations of play.
>If there are consequences beyond the scope of the game, people aren't playing
Ah like the NBA or NFL? Those big multi-million dollar contracts and random drug tests are just part of the game.
Ah like the NBA or NFL? Those big multi-million dollar contracts and random drug tests are just part of the game.
You are playing semantics instead of trying to understand what I'm saying.
What you are saying is semantics.
You have a lot to learn, little boy.
Please read: http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
I'm a man and I really dislike competitive aspects of society. I mean if I'm playing a game and it's for fun, I'm okay with it, as long as everyone play to play, not play to win.
If I'm literally competing to earn a living, or if it ends up in praising winners and blaming losers, it won't be enjoyable, and I'd rather not play at all. Having humility also means that when you win, you also congratulate losers for playing.
I agree that we need to compete on some aspects, like technology, science, construction methods, and business in general. But competing between individuals brings out the worst in people. And that's where exclusion starts: if you keep slapping people's self esteem by telling them that life and society is a game of winners and losers, you'll end up with less and less people ready to take part in it.
Overall, I sense that men avoid competition much more than women do. Or maybe it's the political climate that does. I don't really know.
If I'm literally competing to earn a living, or if it ends up in praising winners and blaming losers, it won't be enjoyable, and I'd rather not play at all. Having humility also means that when you win, you also congratulate losers for playing.
I agree that we need to compete on some aspects, like technology, science, construction methods, and business in general. But competing between individuals brings out the worst in people. And that's where exclusion starts: if you keep slapping people's self esteem by telling them that life and society is a game of winners and losers, you'll end up with less and less people ready to take part in it.
Overall, I sense that men avoid competition much more than women do. Or maybe it's the political climate that does. I don't really know.
But we are a society based on competition and winners and losers (loser in the sense you lost this particular competition) from birth on. Ignoring that is putting yourself at a disadvantage.
I think it is important to have competition early and often in life because learning how to win and lose is an important life lesson. Getting lazy because of a win or quitting because of a loss will severely impact someone for their entire life.
I think it is important to have competition early and often in life because learning how to win and lose is an important life lesson. Getting lazy because of a win or quitting because of a loss will severely impact someone for their entire life.
I don't think society is (or should) based solely on competition. Society is also built on mutually beneficial cooperation. Most modern countries give money to the poor so that they can spend it, which benefits society as a whole.
The idea of winners and losers comes from social darwinism, which is just another justification for people to keep wealth to themselves and not pay taxes "because it helps the weak".
The reality is that we truly don't know what motivates people to work or to innovate. That's why equality (not egalitarianism) is important.
> Getting lazy because of a win or quitting because of a loss will severely impact someone for their entire life.
Well if you look into society, that happens all the time. And even when it doesn't happen, people still put social filters on each others because of that belief. It's becoming a club of people which believe in "strong motivation".
> I think it is important to have competition early and often in life because learning how to win and lose is an important life lesson.
What kind of life lesson is that ? On what sort philosophy does it stand on? That sounds like a motivational religion.
The idea of winners and losers comes from social darwinism, which is just another justification for people to keep wealth to themselves and not pay taxes "because it helps the weak".
The reality is that we truly don't know what motivates people to work or to innovate. That's why equality (not egalitarianism) is important.
> Getting lazy because of a win or quitting because of a loss will severely impact someone for their entire life.
Well if you look into society, that happens all the time. And even when it doesn't happen, people still put social filters on each others because of that belief. It's becoming a club of people which believe in "strong motivation".
> I think it is important to have competition early and often in life because learning how to win and lose is an important life lesson.
What kind of life lesson is that ? On what sort philosophy does it stand on? That sounds like a motivational religion.
learning how to win and lose is an important life lesson
The life lesson I got from it was that winning leads to social exclusion, from both peers and teachers. So yes, I learned to not (openly) compete any more.
The life lesson I got from it was that winning leads to social exclusion, from both peers and teachers. So yes, I learned to not (openly) compete any more.
Like or dislike, you would be the first to die in 99% of societies, human or otherwise.
This may get downvoted but don't shoot the messenger. You can't "hate" something that just "is".
This may get downvoted but don't shoot the messenger. You can't "hate" something that just "is".
> You can't "hate" something that just "is".
You can, and you should. Civilization itself is based on the idea that what "just is" can be utterly fucked up and should be fixed.
You can, and you should. Civilization itself is based on the idea that what "just is" can be utterly fucked up and should be fixed.
You're way off base. It's people who challenge the current leaders that get beaten back the hardest. That is, it's people in second place who suffer, because they're a threat; people way back in the mass are invisible.
Smallpox just was. We fucking conquered it.
Malaria just is. And luckily, some people will not settle.
Malaria just is. And luckily, some people will not settle.
So does that mean I'm part of the 1%?
Because I'm an unemployed man on welfare.
Because I'm an unemployed man on welfare.
Which is why you dislike competition.
But do I dislike competition because of my social status, or is that the other way around? Which caused which? Is that really sufficient to sum up my opinion through my subjective point of view ? Look at the politics of dealing with losers in our society, it's not pretty.
I think that at some point, if there is more competition than cooperation, a lot of people will get alienated, and that won't always be a good thing. I mean trade in general feels more like competition than cooperation.
I agree that competition yields benefits thanks since the economy manages itself, but it also has huge costs. I mean I don't like society for its competition, I like it for its cooperation. If I'd really like competition, I'd live as a hermit. And to be honest, if society become less and less cooperative as a whole, what's the point of it ?
I think that at some point, if there is more competition than cooperation, a lot of people will get alienated, and that won't always be a good thing. I mean trade in general feels more like competition than cooperation.
I agree that competition yields benefits thanks since the economy manages itself, but it also has huge costs. I mean I don't like society for its competition, I like it for its cooperation. If I'd really like competition, I'd live as a hermit. And to be honest, if society become less and less cooperative as a whole, what's the point of it ?
His point was there should be a threshold level of competitiveness to survive in the world, and you based on your posts probably fall below that (made-up) threshold.
I agree partially here. People who show greatest reluctance also sometimes compete crazy for the right kind of reward or circumstance.
Humans or for that part, animals that are social, have a very interesting compete-cooperate dynamic. The compete part also is how we choose our leaders, in cooperate team/group.
I agree partially here. People who show greatest reluctance also sometimes compete crazy for the right kind of reward or circumstance.
Humans or for that part, animals that are social, have a very interesting compete-cooperate dynamic. The compete part also is how we choose our leaders, in cooperate team/group.
Some people may downvote you for asking not to be downvoted, mind.
seems the fact he's alive puts that into question.
> Overall, I sense that men avoid competition much more than women do.
Seriously? The inherent drive in men to compete/take risks is why people advocate for "leveling the playing field" when it comes to pay, promotions, etc.
Seriously? The inherent drive in men to compete/take risks is why people advocate for "leveling the playing field" when it comes to pay, promotions, etc.
Actually I meant that when you have men relating to each other in a social context.
"Overall, I sense that men avoid competition much more than women do."
That's interesting, and seems a bit contrarian. If you felt like elaborating, I'd feel like listening.
That's interesting, and seems a bit contrarian. If you felt like elaborating, I'd feel like listening.
I don't know if it's a general trend, but men potentially have more to lose in a contest in terms of self- and other-esteem. As a man, I tend to either avoid competitions I don't have a decent chance of winning, or if there's some other compelling reason to join, consciously decouple my pride from the outcome. Otherwise I take it too personally.
> Overall, I sense that men avoid competition much more than women do.
See: any competitive activity. Which gender generally dominates a competition?
See: any competitive activity. Which gender generally dominates a competition?
well, dominating the competition can be the result of avoiding it.
You don't dominate chess by avoiding playing chess, that's for sure.
Life and society aren't always like chess.
You do if you avoid playing IBM.
"The only winning move is not to play."
Recognize the quote?
Recognize the quote?
That is, quite literally, what this experiment showed. Boys did well when it was a non-competitive 'game'. Girls didn't do so well when it was an inconsequential 'game'.
Not entirely: boys did better in a non-competitive setting, but girls performed equally in both settings.
>In classes given reading evaluations, boys made an average of 33.3 correct answers compared with 43.3 by the girls. But when the tests were framed as animal games, boys’ average scores were significantly higher: 44.7 compared with 38.3 for the girls.
Girls performed worse in the non-competitive setting.
Girls performed worse in the non-competitive setting.
Ah, I stand corrected. I had understood the differences with the girls were insignificant, but it doesn't appear to be.
IMHO, a lot of the ideas about competition in society come from a deep (and sometimes purposeful) misunderstanding of natural selection. [1] is an decent taste of this line of inquiry, and America's early 20th century obsession with eugenics is fascinating in a really, really, really unsettling sort of way.
That said: I disagree that individual competition brings out the worst in people. It can certainly do that - but applied properly, it can also improve attention, creativity, and other indicators of task-based performance.
Also, life/society as we currently understand it does contain aspects of competition, often in subtle ways. A person might decide between multiple potential mates; a prospective employee might negotiate their starting offer; a student might organize a club to help distinguish themselves from thousands of other graduates. Whenever I buy food or clothes or whatever, I need to buy it from someone (not being a diehard homesteader), so there are multiple vendors competing for my attention and custom. We might be able to do without some of this, but a lot of it is driven by limits on resources (material, population, etc.)
(You might also be interested in the New Games Movement, one of the many weird outcroppings of hippie-era counterculture: they sought to build a corpus of games that highlighted cooperation over competition. The movement died a somewhat predictable death, but its games live on - if you've ever played any of the circle games popular with camps, youth groups, and teachers, you've probably played something that has its roots in the New Games Movement.)
(Last diversion: game-theoretic dilemmas are also really interesting, since most of them revolve around cases in which individual optimal strategies lead to worse overall strategies. See also: bystander effect / volunteer dilemma, tragedy of the commons.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
That said: I disagree that individual competition brings out the worst in people. It can certainly do that - but applied properly, it can also improve attention, creativity, and other indicators of task-based performance.
Also, life/society as we currently understand it does contain aspects of competition, often in subtle ways. A person might decide between multiple potential mates; a prospective employee might negotiate their starting offer; a student might organize a club to help distinguish themselves from thousands of other graduates. Whenever I buy food or clothes or whatever, I need to buy it from someone (not being a diehard homesteader), so there are multiple vendors competing for my attention and custom. We might be able to do without some of this, but a lot of it is driven by limits on resources (material, population, etc.)
(You might also be interested in the New Games Movement, one of the many weird outcroppings of hippie-era counterculture: they sought to build a corpus of games that highlighted cooperation over competition. The movement died a somewhat predictable death, but its games live on - if you've ever played any of the circle games popular with camps, youth groups, and teachers, you've probably played something that has its roots in the New Games Movement.)
(Last diversion: game-theoretic dilemmas are also really interesting, since most of them revolve around cases in which individual optimal strategies lead to worse overall strategies. See also: bystander effect / volunteer dilemma, tragedy of the commons.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
You are right and you are probably left leaning politically and are pro immigration, also you are probably not physically strong. The reason for your avoidance of competition is both environmentally affected and genetic. Your parents, maybe even grandparents, were probably raised in an environment where they didn't have to struggle too much at life. This kind of life changes genetic expression in a way that adapts to this environment. It causes rabbit like behaviour - breed as much as possible, don't care to much about offspring, don't care to much about quality of mate, consume food without much competition for it and react only to the current and immediate threat to your life. If threat avoided, don't plan ahead to prevent it. Physically the affected gene expression reduces the size of amygdala which causes individual to be unable to perceive threats. Also it causes the brain to constantly seek novelty and reduces dopamine reward for things that normally would motivate you to seek competition and success. So your avoidance of competition is likely inherited.
Sounds like a newer version of eugenics with a bit of social darwinism in it.
Actually I come from a family of people who either hide during the war (jewish/polish origins), or suffered from it. Maybe you'd also label it as "didn't have to struggle too much at life".
Eitherway, I don't think society was built to reflect the state of nature and competition. If you think struggle is good, I think you have some skewed belief of "life" in general. I don't have such belief.
Also comparing people and rabbits is really ridiculous. Even behavior psychologist and sociologists don't go that far.
Actually I come from a family of people who either hide during the war (jewish/polish origins), or suffered from it. Maybe you'd also label it as "didn't have to struggle too much at life".
Eitherway, I don't think society was built to reflect the state of nature and competition. If you think struggle is good, I think you have some skewed belief of "life" in general. I don't have such belief.
Also comparing people and rabbits is really ridiculous. Even behavior psychologist and sociologists don't go that far.
Your response is not surprising. "Struggle" is not definitive marker of said expression. Specific protein is, which can be detected if you wanted it. Those with the adaptation, either it is liberal, like you, or conservative, like me, always seek to sustain that environment. Because changing genetic expression is a slow process and not preferred by the body. And your behavior, including this comment, is a result of changed in brain areas more than result of information you have received.
So left vs right is a war between heritable different gene expression proteins on the most basic level. Different ideas and perceptions are only a byproduct of the effect these proteins cause.
And there's nothing inherently wrong with this expression. I'm just acknowledging that we are fundamentally different on the cell level and nothing can make us agree. Doesn't mean my expression is better than yours. These are just different evolutionary adaptations in animals that humans are part of. I have example of rabbits because they have furthered your type of "lifestyle" to more discernable level.
Also your eugenics argument is completely strawman, as is expected from you.
So left vs right is a war between heritable different gene expression proteins on the most basic level. Different ideas and perceptions are only a byproduct of the effect these proteins cause.
And there's nothing inherently wrong with this expression. I'm just acknowledging that we are fundamentally different on the cell level and nothing can make us agree. Doesn't mean my expression is better than yours. These are just different evolutionary adaptations in animals that humans are part of. I have example of rabbits because they have furthered your type of "lifestyle" to more discernable level.
Also your eugenics argument is completely strawman, as is expected from you.
You know me so well.
When will your book come out ?
When will your book come out ?
I'm genuinely confused as to the satirical nature of this comment. If you're being serious, can you please substantiate your claims with a links to relevant research?
This is satirical, right?
Protip: some of us can significantly increase our own throughput if we frame tasks like competitions.
I'll add a warning about not overdoing this, as someone who has previously burned out before I am careful not to trick myself too often.
Edit: at least -> out
I'll add a warning about not overdoing this, as someone who has previously burned out before I am careful not to trick myself too often.
Edit: at least -> out
I wish I'd know how to do that. My brain refuses to cooperate with any attempts to purposefully "frame" something, immediately recognizing it as fake.
About the only time I was able to "convince myself" something is a game was when I was going through such a hard time that I was automatically turning everything into silly games as a coping mechanism. For better or worse, I'm unable to do that anymore.
About the only time I was able to "convince myself" something is a game was when I was going through such a hard time that I was automatically turning everything into silly games as a coping mechanism. For better or worse, I'm unable to do that anymore.
And some of us do worse! Everybody overlooks the other statistic from this experiment: the girls' scores dropped as much as the boys rose, when playing the 'game'. I'd be more worried about that. Its not about reading, folks.
Sounds like a point in favor of going back to gender segegated schools. Let the girls cooperate, and the boys compete, and theoretically everyone will end off better for it.
Sure, its true today that gender-separated schools have better outcomes. But it may not be necessary to go to that extreme for everybody.
Anway, competition is normal in the working world (at least in America). So there's a problem regardless of school effects.
Anway, competition is normal in the working world (at least in America). So there's a problem regardless of school effects.
Used to think this was good, but not sure if this is a good thing in the long run:
Sooner or later they need to work together anyway.
I'd rather suggest being honest about the fact that statistically speaking boys and girls are different and both have to respect each other.
Sooner or later they need to work together anyway.
I'd rather suggest being honest about the fact that statistically speaking boys and girls are different and both have to respect each other.
The girls' scores dropped half as much as the boys' rose.
Similar 'good' numbers for both, much worse 'bad' numbers for boys.
Similar 'good' numbers for both, much worse 'bad' numbers for boys.
Did we read the same article? Their scores essentially swapped.
This is how I got through undergrad and grad school. I framed every class and assignment as a competition me vs. the teacher and/or me vs. the other students.
Which seems really weird to me - education isn't a competition it's a collaboration with the teacher and the other students.
This mindset seems harmful to me as I see it playing out with my kids "teacher X set this homework and will tell me off if I don't do it" rather than "teacher X set this homework and I'll not understand the subject as well if I don't do it". The kids think the homework is "for the teacher" rather than for them.
Education is supposed to be an opportunity not a sentence or conflict, isn't it?
This mindset seems harmful to me as I see it playing out with my kids "teacher X set this homework and will tell me off if I don't do it" rather than "teacher X set this homework and I'll not understand the subject as well if I don't do it". The kids think the homework is "for the teacher" rather than for them.
Education is supposed to be an opportunity not a sentence or conflict, isn't it?
Yes, it is. But more often than not the kids can't see it that way. It's a rare child that understands why the teacher wants them to figure out how many watermelons fifty people bought at 3 different stores.
Unfortunately, this mindset continues far longer than it should. Highschool students, unlike their elementary counterparts, are more than capable of understanding what education is, but still continue to view it as something forced upon them, rather than for their benefit. I've seen more than a few college students with this mindset as well. The cheer that goes up when the college gives them a day off is a bit disheartening.
Unfortunately, this mindset continues far longer than it should. Highschool students, unlike their elementary counterparts, are more than capable of understanding what education is, but still continue to view it as something forced upon them, rather than for their benefit. I've seen more than a few college students with this mindset as well. The cheer that goes up when the college gives them a day off is a bit disheartening.
I think one of the reasons is the need for autonomy. I was one of the people who more often than not cheered when we had a day off college - because education interfered with my time to learn on my own. Often, I was learning the same (or related) stuff, but without the soul-draining and distracting experience of grading and deadlines.
You've totally missed the point.
It's not about what education is or is not, it's that the male brain, for whatever reason, is highly motivated by competition.
It's not about what education is or is not, it's that the male brain, for whatever reason, is highly motivated by competition.
It's a competition to gaining knowledge.
"The latest study, in France, involved 80 children, 48 boys and 30 girls"
What do i win for spotting errors?
What do i win for spotting errors?
Two who declined to reveal their gender? Two intersex children? Hmm, yeah, seems unlikely! Email the editor, or there may be an errata email address.
Certainly would be a very odd control group!
Journal article just specifies 80 children, of which 48 were boys, so that would be an arithmetic problem at the WSJ. Lucky they don't deal with numbers on a regular basis :-/ Corrections email address: [email protected]
Journal article just specifies 80 children, of which 48 were boys, so that would be an arithmetic problem at the WSJ. Lucky they don't deal with numbers on a regular basis :-/ Corrections email address: [email protected]
There's bound to be a dodgy joke about significant figures in there...
Obviously there were 158 children in total.
The paper is paywalled so I can only read the abstract, but I am super curious to learn how the researchers were able to confidently determine the male students' rationale. The researchers claim that stereotype threat caused the male students to perform worse on the reading test when the students were not told the test was a game. How did the researchers figure this out without even asking the students?
They are so certain of this conclusion that they put it in the title of the paper. It's amazing how much they could infer from test scores alone. I'm curious to read the paper to determine how they were able to rule out competitiveness, confidence, and every other explanation of the results.
They are so certain of this conclusion that they put it in the title of the paper. It's amazing how much they could infer from test scores alone. I'm curious to read the paper to determine how they were able to rule out competitiveness, confidence, and every other explanation of the results.
Regarding the paywall:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/...
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/...
hmmm, so THAT's how it can be used for ! Thank you for the link.
Asking the students wouldn't help -- very few of us are aware of our unconscious beliefs, especially since they are often in conflict with our conscious beliefs. Asking the students might be an interesting side project on awareness among 9-year-olds, but it won't shed any light on stereotype threat, which encompasses confidence anyway (that's one of the mechanisms).
After all, if you can get Asian women in the US to score significantly better and then significantly worse on a math test by first reminding them "Asians are good at math" and then "girls are bad at math", do you think they're going to be able to report on that "rationale"? And if they're aware of it, won't they subvert the whole experiment by using other sophisticated techniques like
(1) externalizing difficulty ("that researcher is just a jerk who doesn't know anything!"),
(2) reminding themselves of their complex self-identities and membership in several groups ("I'm a complex person; gender stereotypes are societal constructs; and remember, I'm Asian and I'm good at math -- let's use this stereotype for personal good!"), and
(3) using previous teachers' communication of high standards and assurance of capability, along with some role models,
to blow that test out of the water and confound all the study results?
(All of the above are techniques to combat stereotype threat that have been studied and found somewhat to very effective.)
After all, if you can get Asian women in the US to score significantly better and then significantly worse on a math test by first reminding them "Asians are good at math" and then "girls are bad at math", do you think they're going to be able to report on that "rationale"? And if they're aware of it, won't they subvert the whole experiment by using other sophisticated techniques like
(1) externalizing difficulty ("that researcher is just a jerk who doesn't know anything!"),
(2) reminding themselves of their complex self-identities and membership in several groups ("I'm a complex person; gender stereotypes are societal constructs; and remember, I'm Asian and I'm good at math -- let's use this stereotype for personal good!"), and
(3) using previous teachers' communication of high standards and assurance of capability, along with some role models,
to blow that test out of the water and confound all the study results?
(All of the above are techniques to combat stereotype threat that have been studied and found somewhat to very effective.)
Wow. And after the study they went to the cafeteria and ate food from intentionally smaller plates which tricked their brains into believing they were full -- for about a week.
Psychology is so full of lies. Both the content of the 'studies' and the studies themselves (all testing and no theory). Also the motivations for the studies seem to be quite often political. (Presumably this helps for obtaining public money.)
Here's a little study I propose. Have children, don't send them to school and notice how they learn to read without teaching or testing. And how much better adults report they feel when they aren't trying to do these things to children.
Psychology is so full of lies. Both the content of the 'studies' and the studies themselves (all testing and no theory). Also the motivations for the studies seem to be quite often political. (Presumably this helps for obtaining public money.)
Here's a little study I propose. Have children, don't send them to school and notice how they learn to read without teaching or testing. And how much better adults report they feel when they aren't trying to do these things to children.
Surely you can't mean without teaching. It'd be pretty hard to learn to read without someone teaching you.
Perhaps you mean an experiment where a child is raised by a blind caregiver who never talks about reading. Given full access to children's books and other media but no one to tell them about reading, will they pick it up?
Perhaps you mean an experiment where a child is raised by a blind caregiver who never talks about reading. Given full access to children's books and other media but no one to tell them about reading, will they pick it up?
Children learn to read because it enhances whatever they are most interested in. At present this will usually be video games.
Quite apart from the moral aspect, which is usually ignored, this negates the standard argument that "reading is extremely useful for all sorts of activities, therefore it must be taught".
Of course, adults may help and answer questions when needed.
Quite apart from the moral aspect, which is usually ignored, this negates the standard argument that "reading is extremely useful for all sorts of activities, therefore it must be taught".
Of course, adults may help and answer questions when needed.
In Russian it's much easier. After someone learns the letter shapes, they're able to read anything. The pronunciation is only ambiguous in terms of stress.
I used to say this, until I actually tried teaching someone to read in Russian. Then I ran into all sorts of weird cases I had never noticed: "ничего" and similar, various silent letters, etc.
I mean, I agree that it's much simpler than English in terms of going from written letterforms to pronounced word, but there's still a bunch of weirdness floating around.
I mean, I agree that it's much simpler than English in terms of going from written letterforms to pronounced word, but there's still a bunch of weirdness floating around.
It not only seems that boys do better when told it's a game, girls do worse when told it's a game.
It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. The vast majority of men across history died without fathering any children. Doing so was a very real competition to secure power and women and defend what you had from the marauders. Our ancient ancestors were the ones that won these competitions; the ones that lost either died in combat or died as celibate servants to the more powerful men. So even though monogamy and modern society in general has changed the rules somewhat, the instinct is still deeply ingrained in most of us.
Women of course competed with each other for the attention of the most powerful men, but when you think about it from an evolutionary perspective, ultimately all that mattered was that they and their children were cared for and protected. Even in the absolute worst case scenario, your tribe being conquered and all of your men slaughtered, you would most likely be taken as a wife or concubine by the conquerors and life would for the most part continue on as usual after some time. So it isn't surprising that women would be predisposed towards cooperation. Raising children means that you get far more from being able to get along with your tribe and integrate peacefully into a new one if need be, than "winning" any single small victory. And in turn, women that were obsessed with small victories were more likely to piss their tribe off and find themselves ostracized or exiled.
This explains the difference in male and female bullying behaviors as well. Boys publicly display dominance because it confers status. Girls do it far more subtly, in private, so that they can put other girls down without breaking the veneer of social harmony or changing the way others perceive them.
Women of course competed with each other for the attention of the most powerful men, but when you think about it from an evolutionary perspective, ultimately all that mattered was that they and their children were cared for and protected. Even in the absolute worst case scenario, your tribe being conquered and all of your men slaughtered, you would most likely be taken as a wife or concubine by the conquerors and life would for the most part continue on as usual after some time. So it isn't surprising that women would be predisposed towards cooperation. Raising children means that you get far more from being able to get along with your tribe and integrate peacefully into a new one if need be, than "winning" any single small victory. And in turn, women that were obsessed with small victories were more likely to piss their tribe off and find themselves ostracized or exiled.
This explains the difference in male and female bullying behaviors as well. Boys publicly display dominance because it confers status. Girls do it far more subtly, in private, so that they can put other girls down without breaking the veneer of social harmony or changing the way others perceive them.
And that they perform same way when the problem is framed in a way that's most motivating for them.
That's what intuitively thought about tests. They show a bit of how much you can but also whole lot of how much you care.
That's what intuitively thought about tests. They show a bit of how much you can but also whole lot of how much you care.
I guess it is a bit too simplistic to conclude that the boys prefer competitive environments more than girls?
It's not immediately clear to me whether "it's a game" or "it's a test of reading ability" makes it sound more competitive.
"I want to win at the game" vs "tests = boring" / "I'd better do well on the test as it sounds important and people might think I'm stupid" vs "it's only a silly game"
Perhaps one leans towards being competitive about what your peers think of you, and one towards being competitive about what teachers/adults think? Not sure.
"I want to win at the game" vs "tests = boring" / "I'd better do well on the test as it sounds important and people might think I'm stupid" vs "it's only a silly game"
Perhaps one leans towards being competitive about what your peers think of you, and one towards being competitive about what teachers/adults think? Not sure.
What matters is raising and parent models, not gender.
At risk of being patronizing, you're probably being downvoted by parents who figure you don't have kids.
We have spent many years trying to present gender-neutral environments to our children. Yet at age 3 my son completely ignored the giraffe we were trying to point out at the zoo, and would only focus on the irrigation pump. That kind of experience was repeated often with him and my daughters.
One daughter would only build babies out of the meccanno I taught her to use. OK, they were robot babies and that's awesome, but still. This was before school, none of them had daycare, and we never had a TV.
These sorts of stories are repeated ad infinitum among parents, usually in the context of "I can't believe what I used to think..."
We have spent many years trying to present gender-neutral environments to our children. Yet at age 3 my son completely ignored the giraffe we were trying to point out at the zoo, and would only focus on the irrigation pump. That kind of experience was repeated often with him and my daughters.
One daughter would only build babies out of the meccanno I taught her to use. OK, they were robot babies and that's awesome, but still. This was before school, none of them had daycare, and we never had a TV.
These sorts of stories are repeated ad infinitum among parents, usually in the context of "I can't believe what I used to think..."
> We have spent many years trying to present gender-neutral environments to our children.
[...]
> This was before school
My son's favourite colour before he started daycare was pink. That rapidly got policed out of him by other children and disappointingly by staff in day care.
We persevered - "anyone can like any colour; boys can have pink as their favourite colour, girls can have blue as their favourite colour" and it sort of worked, but he's now in his first year at school and the policing from other children is pretty fierce (although the teachers are much better).
[...]
> This was before school
My son's favourite colour before he started daycare was pink. That rapidly got policed out of him by other children and disappointingly by staff in day care.
We persevered - "anyone can like any colour; boys can have pink as their favourite colour, girls can have blue as their favourite colour" and it sort of worked, but he's now in his first year at school and the policing from other children is pretty fierce (although the teachers are much better).
Have you considered the possibility that your family has been putting strong pressure on your son (probably against your conscious wishes) to like pink, and that he has been trying to satisfy what he perceived a parental demand? Children learn by picking up and copying parental behaviour and preferences.
If not, why not?
If not, why not?
Possibly a bit tangential to the discussion, but there's some chance the "pink vs. blue" convention has a biological basis in respect to male/female color vision differences.
For example, red-green color blindness affects about 7% of males, and < 0.5% females. IOW on the whole males are more likely to be able to see and respond to blue than red or pink.
There's also intriguing if incomplete evidence that among humans with normal color vision, females are more likely to have finer color discrimination ability in the yellow-orange-red end of the spectrum compared to their male counterparts.
Of course, there are going to be a few males "outliers" who have superior color discrimination ability, so a boy could very well appreciate pink even if it's not as likely as it would be among girls.
For example, red-green color blindness affects about 7% of males, and < 0.5% females. IOW on the whole males are more likely to be able to see and respond to blue than red or pink.
There's also intriguing if incomplete evidence that among humans with normal color vision, females are more likely to have finer color discrimination ability in the yellow-orange-red end of the spectrum compared to their male counterparts.
Of course, there are going to be a few males "outliers" who have superior color discrimination ability, so a boy could very well appreciate pink even if it's not as likely as it would be among girls.
>> there's some chance the "pink vs. blue" convention has a biological basis
That makes no sense to me. I'm Greek and in my neck of the woods boys and girls are not expected to wear specific colours, at least not when I was growing up.
If you do a search for Greek traditional dress you'll notice that the colours that dominate are white, black, red and some shade of brown, but they are both pretty much equally distributed between men and women.
That's empirical and maybe someone somewhere has a proper data'd study that contradicts me but you really won't find anyone who can point to examples of pink dominating women's traditional dress in Greece.
I believe the same goes for other cultures. Every time I see the traditional ornamentation of people from the Amazon, or sub-Saharan Africa for instance, vivid bright colours seem to dominate for both sexes. If I think of South-East Asian traditional dress, I get an impression of oranges, yellows, and reds for the women (who do tend to wear the most colourful stuff).
And there's nowhere a shade of pink to be found.
So I think this blue vs pink thing is definitely a cultural phenomenon and that it's really just affecting specific parts of the world.
That makes no sense to me. I'm Greek and in my neck of the woods boys and girls are not expected to wear specific colours, at least not when I was growing up.
If you do a search for Greek traditional dress you'll notice that the colours that dominate are white, black, red and some shade of brown, but they are both pretty much equally distributed between men and women.
That's empirical and maybe someone somewhere has a proper data'd study that contradicts me but you really won't find anyone who can point to examples of pink dominating women's traditional dress in Greece.
I believe the same goes for other cultures. Every time I see the traditional ornamentation of people from the Amazon, or sub-Saharan Africa for instance, vivid bright colours seem to dominate for both sexes. If I think of South-East Asian traditional dress, I get an impression of oranges, yellows, and reds for the women (who do tend to wear the most colourful stuff).
And there's nowhere a shade of pink to be found.
So I think this blue vs pink thing is definitely a cultural phenomenon and that it's really just affecting specific parts of the world.
> If I think of South-East Asian traditional dress, I get an impression of oranges, yellows, and reds for the women (who do tend to wear the most colourful stuff).
Thanks for that info, I wasn't aware of those traditions. Indeed yellow to red is the range of hues that some human females might be able to discriminate better than males. That is, the idea is females see these colors more distinctly or are more visually "sensitive" to these colors.
"Pink" is relevant because it's merely red "diluted" with white, that is, lower saturation of a red hue.
No doubt cultural influences are enormously important re: attributing colors as symbols of gender identity. I was only writing about the possible genetic/biological factors contributing to selecting which colors are assigned to males vs. females, and such factors could certainly be quite secondary.
OTOH the info you contributed is intriguing because it appears to support the hypothesis I was referring to.
Thanks for that info, I wasn't aware of those traditions. Indeed yellow to red is the range of hues that some human females might be able to discriminate better than males. That is, the idea is females see these colors more distinctly or are more visually "sensitive" to these colors.
"Pink" is relevant because it's merely red "diluted" with white, that is, lower saturation of a red hue.
No doubt cultural influences are enormously important re: attributing colors as symbols of gender identity. I was only writing about the possible genetic/biological factors contributing to selecting which colors are assigned to males vs. females, and such factors could certainly be quite secondary.
OTOH the info you contributed is intriguing because it appears to support the hypothesis I was referring to.
>> Indeed yellow to red is the range of hues that some human females might be able to discriminate better than males.
That's interesting indeed, because I was wrong about the male/female dichotomy in Indian traditional dress: yellows and reds (and also fuschias, turquoises and so on) are worn equally by males and females. Blues and purples are also very commonly worn by women. The difference is in the patterns and the shape of the dress, but not in the colours. Apologies for that- like I said I'm Greek, not Indian.
Additionally, the other cultures I mention have an equal spread of reds, yellows, and what have you among men and women, so again I don't see how any genetic thing is at play here.
Finally- All this doesn't say anything about why pink is "girly" only in specific parts of the world. If pink in particular was a genetic thing then it would be all over the place, not just in a few countries.
That's interesting indeed, because I was wrong about the male/female dichotomy in Indian traditional dress: yellows and reds (and also fuschias, turquoises and so on) are worn equally by males and females. Blues and purples are also very commonly worn by women. The difference is in the patterns and the shape of the dress, but not in the colours. Apologies for that- like I said I'm Greek, not Indian.
Additionally, the other cultures I mention have an equal spread of reds, yellows, and what have you among men and women, so again I don't see how any genetic thing is at play here.
Finally- All this doesn't say anything about why pink is "girly" only in specific parts of the world. If pink in particular was a genetic thing then it would be all over the place, not just in a few countries.
Pink vs. blue is a cultural thing
Liking animals and people vs. liking things is very much a natural preference.
Liking animals and people vs. liking things is very much a natural preference.
> before he started daycare was pink
Pink used to be considered a masculine color in England (a boy color) in the 1800's.
Pink used to be considered a masculine color in England (a boy color) in the 1800's.
I'm sure he will thank you for it later...
You are being patronizing, though. Cordelia Fine, who does psychological research on this, has a great anecdote about this entire line of argument- the nonsexist parent who tried to do gender neutral parenting, comically failed, and then realized boys and girls truly are different, and now campaigns from the opposite perspective.
She brings up one such anecdote from another book, where parents really tried to give their daughter firetrucks AND dolls, jeans AND dresses, but at the end of the day, the girl was tucking the firetruck to bed like a good mom and wanted to wear dresses. That book was all about how girls have innate nurturing tendencies and so on.
Of course, the mom was the one tucking the girl to bed almost every night. It was funny that parents failed at giving their daughter fire-trucks, but it's even funnier that someone would ignore the massive impact their own behavior had imprinted on their kids. Same with dresses- mom may wear jeans frequently, but dad absolutely never wears a dress. How are you going to ignore this, even if your kid is only three years old? They learn to speak like you in such a short period of time, and you're going to chalk up zoos vs. irrigation pumps to biology? You say you're a proud machinist and woodworker in your profile. Does your wife spend equal amounts of time in the shop? Do you think your kids are not already making choices about whether they're more like you or your wife?
She also brings up some interesting research by Castelli et al [0], where parents are interviewed about their opinions about racism (ie: I am NOT racist, and I teach my kid to NOT be racist), but then evaluates them on their implicit attitudes towards race (everyone's somewhat racist, I hope you'd agree), and kids match their parents really well not compared to their explicit attitudes, but more in the implicit ones.
The truth is that if you tried to raise your kids in a gender-neutral environment, you completely failed, because we make it absolutely impossible, unless you control absolutely all media and social influence and tune your own behavior accordingly, which would be creepy and Stalinesque.
It doesn't mean that there are no innate gender differences, or that they undesirable, but it definitely means that parents who get together to talk about how they "can't believe what [they] used to think" because they've been awokened to gender differences have just swapped one unfounded source of condescension for another.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19271841 > Previous literature based on self-report measures has not found a clear relationship between the ethnic attitudes of White parents and those of their children. In particular, no study has evidenced such a relationship in the case of preschool children. In the present study, the authors measured parents' implicit and explicit racial attitudes as well as the racial attitudes of their 3- to 6-year-old children. They found that parents' explicit attitudes were not related to children's responses. In contrast, mothers' implicit attitudes (but not fathers' implicit attitudes) were significant predictors of children's attitudes. Results demonstrate that early racial attitudes might develop within the family.
She brings up one such anecdote from another book, where parents really tried to give their daughter firetrucks AND dolls, jeans AND dresses, but at the end of the day, the girl was tucking the firetruck to bed like a good mom and wanted to wear dresses. That book was all about how girls have innate nurturing tendencies and so on.
Of course, the mom was the one tucking the girl to bed almost every night. It was funny that parents failed at giving their daughter fire-trucks, but it's even funnier that someone would ignore the massive impact their own behavior had imprinted on their kids. Same with dresses- mom may wear jeans frequently, but dad absolutely never wears a dress. How are you going to ignore this, even if your kid is only three years old? They learn to speak like you in such a short period of time, and you're going to chalk up zoos vs. irrigation pumps to biology? You say you're a proud machinist and woodworker in your profile. Does your wife spend equal amounts of time in the shop? Do you think your kids are not already making choices about whether they're more like you or your wife?
She also brings up some interesting research by Castelli et al [0], where parents are interviewed about their opinions about racism (ie: I am NOT racist, and I teach my kid to NOT be racist), but then evaluates them on their implicit attitudes towards race (everyone's somewhat racist, I hope you'd agree), and kids match their parents really well not compared to their explicit attitudes, but more in the implicit ones.
The truth is that if you tried to raise your kids in a gender-neutral environment, you completely failed, because we make it absolutely impossible, unless you control absolutely all media and social influence and tune your own behavior accordingly, which would be creepy and Stalinesque.
It doesn't mean that there are no innate gender differences, or that they undesirable, but it definitely means that parents who get together to talk about how they "can't believe what [they] used to think" because they've been awokened to gender differences have just swapped one unfounded source of condescension for another.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19271841 > Previous literature based on self-report measures has not found a clear relationship between the ethnic attitudes of White parents and those of their children. In particular, no study has evidenced such a relationship in the case of preschool children. In the present study, the authors measured parents' implicit and explicit racial attitudes as well as the racial attitudes of their 3- to 6-year-old children. They found that parents' explicit attitudes were not related to children's responses. In contrast, mothers' implicit attitudes (but not fathers' implicit attitudes) were significant predictors of children's attitudes. Results demonstrate that early racial attitudes might develop within the family.
>> Of course, the mom was the one tucking the girl to bed almost every night.
So why did the daughter, given fire trucks and dolls, tuck in the fire trucks instead of the dolls?
So why did the daughter, given fire trucks and dolls, tuck in the fire trucks instead of the dolls?
Actually, it's not clear from the given story whether she was also tucking in the dolls. That wouldn't surprise me.
(not a parent, but I've seen little kids do some pretty goofy things)
(not a parent, but I've seen little kids do some pretty goofy things)
If the parents are gendered, how can they possibly present a gender-neutral environment? They would have to cross-dress, vary their speech and mannerism, vary the length of their hair, be androgynous...
Perhaps the parents you're referring to are failing to realize just how strongly gendered their lives are.
Perhaps the parents you're referring to are failing to realize just how strongly gendered their lives are.
Sure, there is that.
But same sex parents report similar things happening. And many parents try really pretty to fight aspects of this - talking about movies and tv shows; not conforming to the roles; etc.
But same sex parents report similar things happening. And many parents try really pretty to fight aspects of this - talking about movies and tv shows; not conforming to the roles; etc.
> Perhaps the parents you're referring to are failing to realize just how strongly gendered their lives are.
Yes, that's a large part of it. I think people also underestimate how much children pick up from society in general. Beyond what they get from their parents, they're still going to be meeting friends and family members, going outside and seeing other humans interact, other people are probably going to be buying them gifts (even if you try to avoid this, there will be times when people spring them on you), etc. There are a lot of influences we've stopped noticing because they're so pervasive.
Yes, that's a large part of it. I think people also underestimate how much children pick up from society in general. Beyond what they get from their parents, they're still going to be meeting friends and family members, going outside and seeing other humans interact, other people are probably going to be buying them gifts (even if you try to avoid this, there will be times when people spring them on you), etc. There are a lot of influences we've stopped noticing because they're so pervasive.
What's your favourite piece of evidence that proves that point?
Probably tumblr.
Scientific Journal of Tumblr.
Ah so it's nature _or_ nurture now? It must be completely boolean?
That is very likely, considering how different girls and boys are raised in regards to authority and competition.
On reddit’s /r/science several people with degrees in the relevant fields have also speculated that this might be the case.
From personal anecdote, I can confirm that guys usually care less about what an authority thinks, and more about how they are in relation to their peers, while girls consider competition less relevant.
On reddit’s /r/science several people with degrees in the relevant fields have also speculated that this might be the case.
From personal anecdote, I can confirm that guys usually care less about what an authority thinks, and more about how they are in relation to their peers, while girls consider competition less relevant.
I think that 80 children is too small. The different results could as been biased that there were different classes, so different (possibly) skill levels of the students.
What sample size would satisfy you?
For extrapolating the results to the entire Earth population? Let's see, that would require a cross-generational study across a number of different societies, across different schools and classrooms, from different socio-economic situations, and with an equal number of control groups.
So we're looking at a minimum of 4 (test moments across 25 years) * 4 (societies) * 5 (schools across socio-economic areas) * 2 (classes per school) * 2 (test + control group) * 30 (pupils per class) =~ 10000 test subjects.
So we're looking at a minimum of 4 (test moments across 25 years) * 4 (societies) * 5 (schools across socio-economic areas) * 2 (classes per school) * 2 (test + control group) * 30 (pupils per class) =~ 10000 test subjects.
eracle(1)
A single study with n=80, in a social psych journal, with a trendy soundbite conclusion? Of course it's not a false positive! The fact that the authors cite a paper by Jens Foerster is icing on the cake.
n=80 is actually not bad, if that's what you're implying. There are a lot of studies that are n=30 since that's the rule of thumb most follow.
The n isn't the bad part. I'm skeptical of all psych studies. Readers extrapolate too much from simple, controlled experiments.
I guess you think science would be better off just memory-holing results that you don't want to know about, is that right?
[deleted]
Here’s a link to the paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103116...
Decent discussion at reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4i75i0/study_shows...
Decent discussion at reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4i75i0/study_shows...
The article does a great job of it, too:
"Caveat: The study was relatively small and involved children who were still learning how to read."
Your only take-away isn't supposed to be some editor's choice for the title.
Added after original post:
This is why I don't like the "tl;dr" meme. If people would take more time to absorb the information related to topics we care about, there wouldn't be this desire to have a random person on the net distill that knowledge into something you can consume in 20 seconds or less. It's like getting all of your political opinions from Comedy Central. You're willingly getting your information through yet-another filter, but this filter is presented as unbiased.
Edit: parent comment ninja'd what I was responding to, now this looks super off topic.
"Caveat: The study was relatively small and involved children who were still learning how to read."
Your only take-away isn't supposed to be some editor's choice for the title.
Added after original post:
This is why I don't like the "tl;dr" meme. If people would take more time to absorb the information related to topics we care about, there wouldn't be this desire to have a random person on the net distill that knowledge into something you can consume in 20 seconds or less. It's like getting all of your political opinions from Comedy Central. You're willingly getting your information through yet-another filter, but this filter is presented as unbiased.
Edit: parent comment ninja'd what I was responding to, now this looks super off topic.
This discussion is a distracting tangent. Apparently it’s now impossible to delete comments after they’ve been responded to, so the best I could do was edit my comment down.
Ah. I see what was going on then. That's bitten me in the past too.
This is a distracting tangent. Just so it's clear, I wasn't responding negatively to you. You didn't invent what I'm railing against and as far as I was concerned you were only the messenger of another community's discussion. I don't think you said anything that needed to be edited down.
This is a distracting tangent. Just so it's clear, I wasn't responding negatively to you. You didn't invent what I'm railing against and as far as I was concerned you were only the messenger of another community's discussion. I don't think you said anything that needed to be edited down.
[deleted]
No, just no.
This kind of articles makes me cringe. The fact that the journalist is obviously aware of the limited scope in the research by stating the caveats makes it unresponsible publishing.
This kind of articles makes me cringe. The fact that the journalist is obviously aware of the limited scope in the research by stating the caveats makes it unresponsible publishing.
> The fact that the journalist is obviously aware of the limited scope in the research by stating the caveats makes it unresponsible publishing.
I haven't read the article, but isn't it the opposite? Isn't it being responsible to state the caveats?
I haven't read the article, but isn't it the opposite? Isn't it being responsible to state the caveats?
This. There are always caveats in an experiment. The fact that they are mentioned in the article is a sign of good reporting by the WSJ.
I'm not even sure what they tested has anything to do with reading ability. Other than identifying certain kinds of words in a list, it certainly didn't require comprehension or understanding. The task was actually more like a game that involved words than a reading test. So while they may have observed an effect (still a smallish sample) I don't think it says anything meaningful about reading ability.
Boys likes games and I believe boys are naturally competitive. Tell any boy something is a game, or a competition, and they will treat it as such. It has nothing to do with race, society, culture, or social upbringing. It's as close to human nature as one can get.
Some statistical problems I can see here:
1. Sample size n=80. You would need a pretty incredible result for a sample size this small to be significant.
2. All students from the same region of France. Will this result carry over to other countries? Other cultures?
3. The treatment groups were chosen from pre-existing classes. Classes whose composition may not be random.
It's a cool result, and it should definitely be tried again elsewhere but pop science articles shouldn't be saying this is anything worth talking any yet.
1. Sample size n=80. You would need a pretty incredible result for a sample size this small to be significant.
2. All students from the same region of France. Will this result carry over to other countries? Other cultures?
3. The treatment groups were chosen from pre-existing classes. Classes whose composition may not be random.
It's a cool result, and it should definitely be tried again elsewhere but pop science articles shouldn't be saying this is anything worth talking any yet.
1. What sample size is necessary for a result of this magnitude to be significant? Because boys did 34% better when it was framed as a game. Did they have to double their scores for it to be significant at this sample size?
> boys did 34% better
No, two particular classes of students had their boys do 34%. In reality, the sample size was 4, not 80. They choose 4 classrooms, and saw these results.
If the researchers switched the classroom treatment selections, are you certain we would have seen the same result? Or did we really just find out that boys in those two classrooms happen to be 34% better at reading?
Those classrooms where boys did worse might have done worse for a large number of other reasons: those schools might be on the 'bad' side of town where less affluent students tend to go (happens all the time in small towns); that classroom might have been the one where the school has put all the trouble-maker kids because they know this particular teacher has the ability to teach those kinds of kids (or, conversely, that class might be the one that saw the huge boost when it was a game); the classes who did worse might have had a classmate dying in hospital that week, and the boys just didn't do very well under those conditions.
There are too many other completely reasonable answers that aren't related to the test itself, given the methods used in this study.
How I'd repeat the experiment: pool all the children before randomly selecting them for treatment groups to avoid bias from their origin classroom.
Edit: And to be clear, I'm not saying the results are incorrect. They might be onto something amazing here. They just happen to be bad at statistics. Maybe they should frame it as a game.
No, two particular classes of students had their boys do 34%. In reality, the sample size was 4, not 80. They choose 4 classrooms, and saw these results.
If the researchers switched the classroom treatment selections, are you certain we would have seen the same result? Or did we really just find out that boys in those two classrooms happen to be 34% better at reading?
Those classrooms where boys did worse might have done worse for a large number of other reasons: those schools might be on the 'bad' side of town where less affluent students tend to go (happens all the time in small towns); that classroom might have been the one where the school has put all the trouble-maker kids because they know this particular teacher has the ability to teach those kinds of kids (or, conversely, that class might be the one that saw the huge boost when it was a game); the classes who did worse might have had a classmate dying in hospital that week, and the boys just didn't do very well under those conditions.
There are too many other completely reasonable answers that aren't related to the test itself, given the methods used in this study.
How I'd repeat the experiment: pool all the children before randomly selecting them for treatment groups to avoid bias from their origin classroom.
Edit: And to be clear, I'm not saying the results are incorrect. They might be onto something amazing here. They just happen to be bad at statistics. Maybe they should frame it as a game.
That's not how you count sample size. If there were four "classes" of one million boys and girls, does it still make the sample size four?
I think I'm not stating my point very well. Apologies for that.
The problem with saying that n=80 is that it presumes each 'test' (student evaluated) was chosen for their treatment independently of each other. This is clearly not true, as entire classes were chosen together. So any variable like 'actually this happens to be the gifted class' can throw the whole study up or down because that variable was not independent between the students tested.
For example, let's say we did this same test in America, but two classes happened to be from the wealthiest part of Boston, and two classes were from the poorest part of Detroit. If, as we randomly selected which class was assigned each treatment, we happened to hit the 1 in 4 chance that both wealthy classes were given the 'this is a game' treatment, would we be ready to say 'the game was the cause of the better test results'? I don't believe so.
That is why I find this study flawed, and why I disagree with the idea that n=80. They may be onto something, but they do not have strong statistical evidence supporting their hypothesis.
The problem with saying that n=80 is that it presumes each 'test' (student evaluated) was chosen for their treatment independently of each other. This is clearly not true, as entire classes were chosen together. So any variable like 'actually this happens to be the gifted class' can throw the whole study up or down because that variable was not independent between the students tested.
For example, let's say we did this same test in America, but two classes happened to be from the wealthiest part of Boston, and two classes were from the poorest part of Detroit. If, as we randomly selected which class was assigned each treatment, we happened to hit the 1 in 4 chance that both wealthy classes were given the 'this is a game' treatment, would we be ready to say 'the game was the cause of the better test results'? I don't believe so.
That is why I find this study flawed, and why I disagree with the idea that n=80. They may be onto something, but they do not have strong statistical evidence supporting their hypothesis.
That's not a sample size, that's called bias. The sample size is still 80, but it could be potentially a biased sample.
That's the super-interesting thing about stereotype-threat-related studies -- they're all extraordinarily culture-dependent, because they're all about subtle cultural attitudes. Repeating this in other places would be interesting.
[deleted]
Gender discussion is too often framed as male vs. female these days. That's come from 30+ years of flawed output from the social science echo chamber and dogmatic denial of human nature. It doesn't matter if boys and girls do better under different conditions, they shouldn't be expected to perform equally in this way. What matters is that we understand those unique conditions and help children thrive whatever their gender. It's great to see research like this, especially when boys across the western world are struggling in academic environments that are perhaps favouring ways of learning more suited to girls.
You mean whatever their sex? Gender is such a strange term.
When investigating the intersection of unconscious attitudes (often shaped by culture) and performance, gender is more relevant than sex. It's not whether you have this equipment or that but what groups you are perceived to belong to and what groups you see yourself as belonging to. In some cultures there are third genders with different cultural expectations: the Hijra in India, Kathoey in Thailand, some other groups in Indonesia. One would expect different stereotypes about their math, science, and reading talents, so it would probably be quite interesting to study stereotype threat there. That's not the case in this French study (probably) but there's no need to collapse the terminology artificially.
That's the crazy thing about stereotype threat and related psychological phenomena: you can manipulate the same people to perform better or worse simply by manipulating their perception of the situation. Thus the effect really can't be about biological sex. Check out reducingstereotypethreat.org for a comprehensive rundown of studies.
That's the crazy thing about stereotype threat and related psychological phenomena: you can manipulate the same people to perform better or worse simply by manipulating their perception of the situation. Thus the effect really can't be about biological sex. Check out reducingstereotypethreat.org for a comprehensive rundown of studies.
Not really. Boys have about 14 to 17 times the amount of serum testosterone as girls and that does affect their felt incentives for things like competition. Culture can mute this but at great cost to boy's and men's health.
The idea that gender is separate from biological sex is very recent. When you examine its origin you find that it comes from Foucault and Judith Butler. Both were gay. It's unsurprising to me that that idea would come from that lineage. If you are gay you are confronted with a difference between what you feel and what society tells you from a very early age. In general straight people do not have that issue and would never consider drawing that distinction unless the concept is introduced to them.
The idea that gender is separate from biological sex is very recent. When you examine its origin you find that it comes from Foucault and Judith Butler. Both were gay. It's unsurprising to me that that idea would come from that lineage. If you are gay you are confronted with a difference between what you feel and what society tells you from a very early age. In general straight people do not have that issue and would never consider drawing that distinction unless the concept is introduced to them.
Your second paragraph seems to be suggesting that Foucault and Butler's idea is wrong because of their sexual orientation. This seems both unjust and irrational. If you believe the distinction has no scientific merit, you could cite or propose relevant studies. If you believe it has no cultural merit, you could discuss how the distinction functions in society.
This seems both unjust and irrational.
Foucault is intersting. In contrast, Butler's work is weak. She really doesn't have a meaningful handle on the relationship between sex and gender.
> Your second paragraph seems to be suggesting that Foucault and Butler's idea is wrong because of their sexual orientation.
That's not how I read it. I read it as, Foucault and Butler's idea is unproven because it's based off of their anecdotal experience rather than based off of any scientific evidence.
That's not how I read it. I read it as, Foucault and Butler's idea is unproven because it's based off of their anecdotal experience rather than based off of any scientific evidence.
I don't see where GP claims that the idea is wrong: they're simply pointing out that it's a relatively recent distinction, which implies (reasonably, IMHO) that we likely don't understand it very well yet, or that it may ultimately not be a meaningful distinction to draw once we better understand the underlying mechanisms.
Perhaps near-future advances in genetics and neurology will expand our definition of biological sex to explain gender identity. In that case, our current sex vs. gender distinction would simply be another way of saying "we don't understand how this works yet". There's a lot of this "transitional stuff" in science history, where we have credible anecdotal evidence that our previous understanding is wrong but don't yet know how to coherently explain it. (See: Greek attempts to explain the nature of matter; the infamous cholera map by John Snow; etc.)
That doesn't make the "transitional stuff" wrong: an idea doesn't have to have solid theoretical underpinnings to have merit. It does, however, mean we should continue searching for an explanation.
Perhaps near-future advances in genetics and neurology will expand our definition of biological sex to explain gender identity. In that case, our current sex vs. gender distinction would simply be another way of saying "we don't understand how this works yet". There's a lot of this "transitional stuff" in science history, where we have credible anecdotal evidence that our previous understanding is wrong but don't yet know how to coherently explain it. (See: Greek attempts to explain the nature of matter; the infamous cholera map by John Snow; etc.)
That doesn't make the "transitional stuff" wrong: an idea doesn't have to have solid theoretical underpinnings to have merit. It does, however, mean we should continue searching for an explanation.
Differences in testosterone levels don't really show up until puberty. This study was done on pre-pubescents.
They show up in the womb, fwiw.
Isn't caitlin Jenner straight?
gender is more relevant than sex
The underlying biological reality is that humans reproduce sexually. All gender roles are social elaborations and heuristics that evolve(d) to regulate and structure the biological reproduction of humans. All gender roles directly or indirectly refer to the sexual binary between males (= can father children) and females (= can give birth to children). E.g. the concept of Kathoey doesn't make sense except as an inversion of the biology-based distinction between males and females. After all, a substantial part of the Kathoey lifestyle is to look and act exactly like a biological female (including permanent genital modification), and have sex with a biological male. Clearly that's an extreme identification with the biological binary, except from an unusual angle. By imitating biological females and their conventional gender roles, by trying to look exactly like somebody who can give birth to children, the Kathoey reinforces the binary between male and female.
stereotype threat
The binary between female and male is kind of awkward to say, especially if you're using biological terms. I'm pretty sure that intersex is considered a very normal, if relatively rare,variation of human sex biology. Intersex isn't extremely rare either and isn't a defect so the idea of a biological binary confuses me.
intersex is considered a very normal
Sexual reproduction so as to perpetuate humanity is the single most important function a society executes. All human culture directly or indirectly relates to this task. One of the key tasks in this context is the choice of partner(s) whom to reproduce with. Alas, not any two humans can reproduce together. Indeed, an exact determination who can successfully reproduce with whom is still not possible in 2016, although we are much better at this task than say 1000 years ago.
Given that we can't predict mate compatibility perfectly, humanity needs heuristics to make this decision efficiently. The following heuristics are being used in practise:
- Divide humans into two, male and female, based on the shape of their genitalia.
- Have sex with members of the opposite group.
Humans use additional heuristics for deciding with whom to mate, e.g. social status, age, but the male/female binary is by a large margin the most important.
As you correctly point out, not all humans neatly fall into the genital-shape based classification between. But it doesn't matter, because the heuristic works so well that humans can reproduce successfully by ignoring those outliers. That means outliers must be infrequent enough (say > 99% fit the binary).
I can't overemphasise this: the heuristic has been extremely successful.
The very concept intersex makes sense only in contradistinction from binary normalcy. To see this, consider the fact that most humans have 10 fingers, but not all. Yet, there is no socially relevant concept of 'interhanded' people, no pressure groups, nobody claims to have been born with the wrong number of fingers, no finger reassignment surgery etc. That's because the number of fingers is not all that important.
In the future we might have a refined classification, as our understanding of human reproduction has improved immeasurably in the last century. But note that a finer classification still relates to biological facts about human bodies. It would probably be something along the lines of
- Can give birth to children, i.e. falls in the category woman, despite non-standard genitalia.
- Can father children, i.e. falls in the category man, despite non-standard genitalia.
- Can neither father children, nor give birth to children.
In other words, it would be a refinement of the male/female binary.
> When investigating the intersection of unconscious attitudes (often shaped by culture) and performance, gender is more relevant than sex.
This is a very broad statement which is trivial to prove false. Look at powerlifting: men perform better than women, and testosterone plays a well-understood role in this performance. This is a function of sex, not gender. And while it's most numerically provable and obvious in powerlifting, this is true for a lot of sports.
At a more fundamental level, I question whether the gender/sex divide is scientifically valid. One can point to the example of a transman and say, "Their female sex didn't align with their male gender at birth" but that seems like a very surface assessment; it's also possible that chemicals released by (for example) their brain or pituitary, are causing the dysphoria they experienced. Are we to claim that ovaries and testicles are sex, and the brain and pituitary is gender? Or might it make more sense to broaden our understanding of sex to realize that genitalia aren't the only organs regulating sex, and instead say that the transperson wasn't born female, but was instead born with a mixture of sex characteristics, and only the most obvious sex characteristics were female, while the characteristics which more fundamentally defined their identity were male.
In a larger sense, this seems related to the categorization error of separating mind and body as if they are two different things, a separation which seems more clearly false.
NOTE: Please don't construe anything I say as negative toward transpeople. I think humans have an inherent, fundamental right to define their identities and modify their bodies in any way they choose. People don't need excuses or justification to exercise that right. Certainly we don't need an abstract distinction between sex and gender to let people dress and socialize with people the way they want or change their bodies.
This is a very broad statement which is trivial to prove false. Look at powerlifting: men perform better than women, and testosterone plays a well-understood role in this performance. This is a function of sex, not gender. And while it's most numerically provable and obvious in powerlifting, this is true for a lot of sports.
At a more fundamental level, I question whether the gender/sex divide is scientifically valid. One can point to the example of a transman and say, "Their female sex didn't align with their male gender at birth" but that seems like a very surface assessment; it's also possible that chemicals released by (for example) their brain or pituitary, are causing the dysphoria they experienced. Are we to claim that ovaries and testicles are sex, and the brain and pituitary is gender? Or might it make more sense to broaden our understanding of sex to realize that genitalia aren't the only organs regulating sex, and instead say that the transperson wasn't born female, but was instead born with a mixture of sex characteristics, and only the most obvious sex characteristics were female, while the characteristics which more fundamentally defined their identity were male.
In a larger sense, this seems related to the categorization error of separating mind and body as if they are two different things, a separation which seems more clearly false.
NOTE: Please don't construe anything I say as negative toward transpeople. I think humans have an inherent, fundamental right to define their identities and modify their bodies in any way they choose. People don't need excuses or justification to exercise that right. Certainly we don't need an abstract distinction between sex and gender to let people dress and socialize with people the way they want or change their bodies.
I would disagree, actually. I am a woman who loves powerlifting, actually, and I think that the attitudes of many women in the United States toward lifting heavy things renders them less likely to actually do it. Many women believe they'll bulk up, they'll be unwomanly, men won't like them, women won't like them, it's ok to be physically weak as a woman because you can always get a guy to open the jar/lift the box. As a result, these women don't try to lift heavy things and when you ask them why, they say, "I can't! I am just not good at it." I'm a relatively small woman who got up to a 220-lb deadlift without much effort -- I know active helplessness when I see it.
But if those attitudes changed, it wouldn't mean that suddenly women would be able to deadlift as much as men.
Take a look at this chart: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/DeadliftStandards....
Your deadlift of 220lbs puts you in the "Advanced" category assuming your body weight is somewhere in the middle. By comparison, I'm deadlifting 360lbs at 185lbs, and that's not even close to "Advanced", I'm well within the "Intermediate" category. For me to be considered advanced, I would have to lift 440lbs, literally twice what you're lifting. That's not a difference explained by psychology.
Besides, we can easily remove the factor you're talking about: there are plenty of sports which don't have the social factors you're describing. There are tons of women who run, for example. In the 60 meter dash, the top male performer, Maurice Greene, finished in 6.39s, more than half a second faster than the top female performer, Irina Privalova, at 6.92s. A half second might not seem like a lot, but consider that Privalova's time wouldn't place her even in the top 25 of male atheletes. [1] Similarly, Paula Radcliffe's 2:15:25 marathon record doesn't wouldn't put her even in the top 10 (I suspect there are hundreds of men whose personal record beats her time, but Wikipedia only shows the top 10).[2]
Do you really think Irina Privalova or Paula Radcliffe is just being actively helpless?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_metres#Top_25_performers [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon#All-time_top_ten_athl...
Take a look at this chart: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/DeadliftStandards....
Your deadlift of 220lbs puts you in the "Advanced" category assuming your body weight is somewhere in the middle. By comparison, I'm deadlifting 360lbs at 185lbs, and that's not even close to "Advanced", I'm well within the "Intermediate" category. For me to be considered advanced, I would have to lift 440lbs, literally twice what you're lifting. That's not a difference explained by psychology.
Besides, we can easily remove the factor you're talking about: there are plenty of sports which don't have the social factors you're describing. There are tons of women who run, for example. In the 60 meter dash, the top male performer, Maurice Greene, finished in 6.39s, more than half a second faster than the top female performer, Irina Privalova, at 6.92s. A half second might not seem like a lot, but consider that Privalova's time wouldn't place her even in the top 25 of male atheletes. [1] Similarly, Paula Radcliffe's 2:15:25 marathon record doesn't wouldn't put her even in the top 10 (I suspect there are hundreds of men whose personal record beats her time, but Wikipedia only shows the top 10).[2]
Do you really think Irina Privalova or Paula Radcliffe is just being actively helpless?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_metres#Top_25_performers [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon#All-time_top_ten_athl...
> Are we to claim that ovaries and testicles are sex, and the brain and pituitary is gender?
That about sums up the usual definitions, yes.
That about sums up the usual definitions, yes.
Why make that distinction when they are fundamentally interconnected?
The point is that they're not fundamentally interconnected. The current line of thinking among transgendered people is that their sex is not appropriate for their gender, regardless of what the chromosomes say. I.e., their genital profile and secondary sex characteristics ("ovaries and testicles") do not exhibit the same sexual mode as their identity ("brain and pituitary", though in many cases likely just "brain").
>> It's not whether you have this equipment or that but what groups you are perceived to belong to and what groups you see yourself as belonging to.
The problem with that is that most of the time the group you're perceived to belong to and what groups you identify with do have everything to do with your "equipment".
The problem with that is that most of the time the group you're perceived to belong to and what groups you identify with do have everything to do with your "equipment".
Sex is the biology; Gender is the identity. Discrimations are based on gender, not sex. Women are told to wear pink dresses because of how our society see women (female gender), not because they have a vagina (female sex).
> Sex is the biology; Gender is the identity
That's only a very recent distinction, and still a contentious one. According to Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender) and the OED (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/gend...), it's far from clear.
That's only a very recent distinction, and still a contentious one. According to Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender) and the OED (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/gend...), it's far from clear.
Based on what the dictionary says? The idea that gender and sex mean two different things isn't contentious amongst the people who study the phenomenon academically.
Well, gender studies is not very scientific. It is more "theorizing", in the sense of writing obscurantist explanations for everyday phenomenon.
The difference in gender and sex also comes up in biology and neuroscience...
Do you feel the same way about all social sciences? Does "materialism" only mean valuing material things to you or do you respect the Philosophical definition? Honestly it's a lot of handwaving to excuse ignorance (what not knowing the difference between the two terms is)
Every generation of soft social "scientists" (I use scare quotes because they don't usually use the scientific method. When I say "soft" social scientists I mean e.g. Gender studies people as opposed to demographers.) tends to disagree with the previous generation on huge fundamental tenets for mostly arbitrary reasons. It is wise to take any dictionary-defying claims from these fields with a large grain of salt, because there's a substantial chance that such a claim is made for social or political (but not scientific) reasons.
The general statement "they mean something different" is a pronouncement on language as a broad concept. The OED and Merriam Webster are about as authoritative an answer as you can get on that in English, which for the sake of HN, will have to do for now. That's not to say one day the differences won't evolve (linguistically) into fairly concrete and well-understood distinctions across all languages, but we're definitely not there yet.
Regardless, these factors are in a 1-to-1 relationship for around 99% of schoolchildren in the third grade "aged 9 years old on average" including, presumably, every single child studied in this study. Discussion of the specific differences, or of the other cases, might have substantial merit... but seem less than productive on this particular occasion as the topic is at best only tangentially related.
Sure; I was only explaining the difference to OP who seems to think gender and sex are two words for the same thing.
> Women are told to wear pink dresses because of how our society see women (female gender), not because they have a vagina (female sex).
Really? I'm pretty sure a large part of any discrimination against women is due to their physical sex, not the way they identify.
Really? I'm pretty sure a large part of any discrimination against women is due to their physical sex, not the way they identify.
> Sex is the biology; Gender is the identity.
What evidence do you have that identity doesn't originate in biology?
I'm well-aware of the existence of transpeople, but I'm not ready to conclude that gender dysphoria doesn't originate in biology. There's more to a person's biology than their genitalia.
What evidence do you have that identity doesn't originate in biology?
I'm well-aware of the existence of transpeople, but I'm not ready to conclude that gender dysphoria doesn't originate in biology. There's more to a person's biology than their genitalia.
Why does one need a gender identity?
We only need it because we live in groups. If we were all by ourselves we would not need this language (and much other language). Much of language is for signaling.
Then I came to Canada and this notion was completely absent. It was one of the many culture shocks. Your grades don't seem to matter that much.
The fact that in the media, at least American disney shows, "nerd" is used a pejorative against people who do well academically, was completely puzzling to me (and actually it still is).