*Now it's scientific (and the president of Harvard was wrong): a study at the Kellogg School of Management in Chicago revealed that a gap in favor of boys in mathematical abilities stems from a social gap, not a biological one!! * The study was conducted in the USA, if it had been conducted in Israel - it would have been found that everyone fails math
The difference between the sexes in the field of mathematics has been the subject of heated debate for many years and it has not been decided even when a number of female scientists have won impressive achievements such as the French discoverer of radium Marie Curie, a two-time Nobel laureate. And now, one of the world's leading management schools, Kellogg, may be reaching a scientific decision in this ancient debate and states: the cause of gender gaps in math achievement is social inequality and nothing else.
The new study that received great interest in the academic world was published in the "Journal of Science" magazine and it proves that girls are more successful in mathematics in an egalitarian social environment, sometimes even more than boys. On the sidelines, the study contradicts a statement by Harvard President Prof. Lawrence Summers from three years ago, which shocked the entire world and women in particular - that 'the explanation for the minority of women in scientific professions is that women do not have the mental abilities to deal with mathematics and science like men'. The research was done at the Kellogg School in Chicago by Prof. Paola Sapienza and partners and came to examine the issue of whether there is a social cultural influence on the success of girls in mathematics. Prof. Spinza and her partners examined whether the sexual difference is of biological or cultural origin.
Kellogg, ranked among the three best management schools in the world, has for the past ten years maintained a full partnership with Tel Aviv University in the Kellogg-Racnati master's degree program for incumbent managers. By the way, since the partnership began in Israel, the participation of women managers in the prestigious curriculum has increased significantly here.
The study found that the gender gap in mathematical abilities does not exist in countries where women have full equality in the availability of resources and opportunities. Spinza and her partners studied the results of the international "Pisa test" in 2003, which tests mathematical abilities, reading comprehension, science and problem solving, in approximately 270,000 male and female students in forty countries around the world. Based on the results, the researchers discovered that there are global patterns of thinking that indicate that boys are better at math than girls - who regularly score on average 10 points less than boys. However, the research clearly showed that in countries like Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, the girls are just as successful as the boys and sometimes even more than them. The researchers examined the social aspects in all countries in accordance with the examination of the integration of women in society using the international GGI index (GENDER GAP INDEX), a scientific index developed by the World Economic Organization to examine gender gaps. The researchers found that in countries where there is equality between the sexes, there is equality in mathematical abilities - a clear compatibility between the GGI index and the results of the PISA tests.
For example in Sweden where according to the index there is complete equality between men and women, no difference was found between the girls and the boys in the PISA mathematics tests in 2003. In Turkey, on the other hand, a country with bigger gaps between the sexes, the difference between boys and girls was 26 points in favor of the boys. In the USA the results were 10 points less to the detriment of the girls.
"The study proved first and foremost that every country should strive as much as possible for full equality between the sexes, to allow full availability of resources and opportunities for all, and in this way the gap between girls and boys in the scientific professions will be narrowed and we will see more women scientists, as well as women managers." said researcher Paula Spinza.
The situation in Israel was not covered in the study, but a review of the results of the PISA tests last year shows that in Israel the gap between boys and girls in the PISA tests was 12 points in favor of the boys. In general, by the way, Israel was ranked relatively low in the PISA tests, 39th out of 57 places.
50 תגובות
And besides, who said the average is more important than the top thousand? After all, all of humanity progressed thanks to those inventions of virtuous individuals who belonged at least to the upper millennium and not through the "nation". In this context, Nietzsche's statement that humanity progresses through giants "shouting to each other through the abyss of generations" is well known. And when we talk about humanism and a desire to promote the community, then the branch of medicine also received its most significant advances by men. Without the advances and inventions made by the upper millennium the rest of the community would have remained in the stone age, without technology to control the environment for its needs and without medicine.
Where did they get the fact that women are better at poetry, painting and sculpture - all the great poets and writers in history were men (Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, and many more) as above for the painters and sculptors. Regarding "men who woo endlessly" I know a lot that it is not at all in their minds to woo women (among them me) and this reminds me of the question of what came first, what came before the chicken or the egg - does the male courtship come first or the women's attempt to "attract flies" to them.
And of course, disgusting old men will always try to force themselves on attractive women and will not understand a simple answer like "because you are not attractive to me".
Old man: "So what? Get used to it little by little", "You won the lottery when you met me, believe me" and "Only your loss, what do I care".
There will never be equality between women and men. It doesn't matter how many eights they make in the air. Men will always be more horny, will always commit much more crimes, will always rape, murder and abuse... even their daughters, as we have seen since time immemorial, will always deny their actions and will always try to make women look small and blame their male shortcomings and failures on them. Even the great male brains suffer from this. It is very difficult to find a man who observes sexual differences objectively. The more inferior he feels, the more he will want to depend on artificial male empowerment.
And women will always be innocent about all this and devoid of warlike consciousness, so there will never be "fair game".
Men will always want women more than women want men and will always want to prove themselves and try to impress and compete, while women even if they contribute much more, will humble themselves and ignore the whole business of taking credit.
Women will also continue to blame themselves if they are raped or beaten, as Stockholm syndrome and will be a little indifferent to the competition, because they do not feel the need to prove anything, naturally.
Only when they are little, they are sure that boys are some chewing gum that they step on and they don't feel any threat, apart from a real physical threat from them, but when they grow up they discover that men are very cunning and will do anything to bring them down socially, so that they have a reason to be with them. The female in nature has no interest in the male. He is the one who makes sex in the air and only then she shows a fake interest in him.
B - "These tests have no value when it comes to the ability to create significant breakthroughs and developments in elementary areas of mathematics. The number of sensational mathematical developments such as the solution of Fermat's and Poincaré's conjectures and other significant advances made by women tends to zero."
Who said this is the only value? It has value in proving for the millionth time that everything men have claimed about women in the past, due to their hatred and lack of objectivity, is not true.
Men once claimed that there was no way that women could understand how much 2+2 is, or that their brains are not genetically-biologically adapted to learning to read and write. is it true? This is another lie that stems from terrible misogyny and the desire to grant themselves the quiet ability to abuse them. On the contrary, from a young age, it is seen that girls are naturally better at math and certainly and certainly better at reading and writing and everything related to language: absorption of written languages, understanding of text, accent, handwriting and I would not be surprised if they prove this about cash registers as well. After all - the biggest breakthrough of the "liberation of man from beast" was created by women through language, speech, "gossip" and the creation of internal languages and cooperation. Now we are simply proving that even the snooty claim about "boys are better at math" can be easily disproved by creating reasonable conditions for girls, let's not talk about what would happen if there really were identical conditions. Men have always opposed equal rights and conditions, because in a situation of equality, girls/women would have an advantage.
Point - from a scientific factual point of view:
1) The elite of the women are inferior in various types of intelligence to the men.
2 The rest of the men and women are idiots in an infinite way.”
A. Since when do you understand anything about science?
B. You just take facts and turn them around, which is exactly the opposite
The elite of men are inferior to women in many types of intelligences
This is especially noticeable, because most men who achieve great achievements in the sciences are autistic, Asperger's or have autistic traits and they excel in only one thing, having the ability to endlessly focus on one thing while emotionally ignoring those around them (and only in your second characteristic are they already able to achieve greatness in their limited field) And in contrast, they are unable to reach even an average level in other fields. On the other hand, women who are good in the sciences, may have difficulty in endless progression, but can be equally good in completely different professions and fields. Women have much more superhuman abilities.
third. The rest of the men are infinitely idiotic and obtuse women, but much less than retarded and obtuse men (there is no measure by which to indicate the level of their extreme stupidity..but it can be observed every day..in conversations between brilliant women who do nothing with themselves and horrible stupid fools with Acutely deep retardation that do something to themselves)
B You wrote "and not just the French woman who corresponded with Gauss" - I wonder where your tendency to diminish the value of women comes from. How is that possible? After all, in reality you court us endlessly and claim that you are worthless zeroes. So here in Virtual is the place to vent your frustrations? How can it be that so many men, who hear about some remarkable achievement of someone, must write something like "Well, then she was a secretary and served coffee to..."...and even in the time of those female scientists, the men deliberately referred to their appearance and to the fact that they were not combed well Or something else stupid. It should be emphasized that you do this without planning with each other, and it comes naturally and instinctively. And on the other hand, when you see a group of girls or women who are good at something, and there is one man there... like say an aerobics class... no woman will start justifying his abilities with all kinds of weird excuses about the fact that he probably had a mother who taught aerobics and that he is doing this to prove that he is also As good as people..or he gave a hand to the instructor and didn't really participate in the class..simply no one does that!! no one!! And in contrast, countless men have a sick urge to do this to women. Even when women see retards, they constantly help and support them (even though they are mostly of the male sex) and constantly promote them. As above, they congratulate the successful and do not talk about their belly and baldness or that it is all because of the connections with his mother and his wife and the fact that they really promoted him.
It is most interesting to explore your sick need to oppress women. Your need to claim that men are better at something is a sick need. After all, it has been proven countless times that men are bad at everything - on average. In every field, maybe except for one field that is also in doubt. Why does the average have less value? The average is much more detailed information that we have about the world than the achievements of the top millennials. The common people advance the world much more than the top millennial. The common people destroy the world much more than the top thousand and the common people are the ones you deal with on a daily basis and not the top thousand.
Singing, painting, sculpting, dancing - these are areas where women are definitely better. And the top thousand is zero in sixty compared to the average differences between men and women in general.
I help dance instructors, and in every dance class I've ever been in as a student or assistant instructor - the couple always joked about how bad the men are and how long it takes to teach them compared to the women. There is nothing to compare at all - not in the time of study, not in the body movements (the men's are much more clumsy) and not in the final level they are able to reach. If you watch a group of dancers, where the female dancers are much better and the man wins a dance competition, would you claim that this is proof that male dancers are better than female dancers? Definately not. It will never change the fact that female dancers/singers are much better and so it is in every other field.
The real differences can already be seen in toddlers - the girls are smarter already in breastfeeding. Women know how to suckle and adjust themselves gently so that the mother does not get hurt, while the boys tend to hurt and injure. The girls show intelligence, wisdom, sensitivity, physical delicacy..while the boys show stupidity, violence, lack of empathy, inability to understand abstract ideas, lack of coordination and more....These differences are exactly the ones that point to the real differences...and not the achievements of autistics from the top thousand. .who can be super retarded even compared to dumb women.
But why does it bother you so much that it is so? It is because of your uncontrollable attraction to women and the knowledge that your body is not attractive and you will never be graceful and attractive as women.. and therefore you are interested in an artificial-external status of achievements that will make you look superior in your own eyes? Women will always look at you as lowly creatures... and no matter what you do. Men did not advance humanity - when you look at it cumulatively. Most men have done everything to prevent human-cultural-value-social progress...whether it's through crime: rape, murder, torture, stoning, imprisoning women and girls, selling women and babies...whether it's through creating horrible norms and whether it's through falsehoods Limits and spoiling everything that could have been amazing, spectacular and romantic in this world.
This, of course, reminds us of the fact that when you discover a small difference between men and women in a field that is seen as an "advantage for men" they rush to salute it and emphasize it... but precisely in the biggest, clearest and most critical difference for humanity - the level of violence, crime and corruption of men compared to the gentleness, grace, empathy and abilities of men A man on his own time and not on the time of women..suddenly they claim "are they the same, women kill just like men..they just hide it" and all kinds of bullshit like that.
Or if they discover a difference of one point in the average of IQ tests between women and men, they talk about it, but no one talks about a difference of maybe 15-20 points in average between Ashkenazim and Mizrahi.
I did say illogical, because it is illogical to let demons out of a bottle, just like you wouldn't do a study to find out which race is the smartest and best at math or any other social explosive. Not because it is not interesting, but because it is a threat to stability and can lead to bad places.
fresh:
You spoke about logical and not about "politically correct" and the reasons you gave were not related to political correctness.
To that I answered.
I think it is also politically correct, but it is part of an overall worldview according to which there is no connection between a person's "worth" and his abilities in this or that field.
In my opinion, it is appropriate to investigate almost every field in which our understanding can be improved - not only out of curiosity, but also to adjust the methods of treatment and teaching so that the goals of treatment and teaching are achieved more effectively.
Michael
Not everything that makes sense is worth checking, and not everything is politically correct to do.
fresh:
It makes perfect sense.
It also does not contradict your requirement to check the connection to genes because there is a genetic difference between boys and girls and this difference is responsible for many differences in traits - including intelligence for the issue.
Examining mental abilities according to gender categories makes just as much sense as dividing into the categories of Shay who eats breakfast and who doesn't, which means it doesn't make any sense at all. If anything, the division should be according to genetic categories in genes that are relevant to mathematical ability, or environmental, i.e. socioeconomic level, type of education, etc.
Haha, leave, I've already given up on talking to you..enters and leaves at the same time..
Yanon:
I have never put words into your response, and even if I had put words into it - the words you have already put into it make it so meaningless that any words I add to it will be of no use.
Maybe it's not clear to you, but my response is mine and it shouldn't include your words at all.
Well, Michael, I'll do what you do like...lol, get out of my life!
And it's enough to insert sentences that are not related. Half of your response refers to just things that you throw in the air.. You say things that I didn't say at all. Don't put words in my mouth, rather a response!
Yanon:
It's time for you to understand that people act on you according to their ambitions and not according to your ambitions.
I strive to reach the truth and I see you as a nuisance to people that is their goal.
You're just messing with your brain and not saying anything true or serious and I'm trying to make you understand that I don't like people who do that.
Hey Michael, here you are again..
My response does not reflect my success in mathematics!
You are really delusional. Be positive. People like positive people.
When I respond here, I want you to respond with words that identify with my response..but instead of a plus you make a minus
Yanon:
You really intrigued me.
so how are you in math
You must not have a clue.
boys or girls? If you ask me..
It all depends on...
A friend - do you hang around in a company that wants to learn.. a company that is not lazy there is a competition between everyone who is the best and there is an ambition.. so you want to be above everyone else you want to prove to everyone that you are not stupid and she has will power and you succeed=]
Or if you see your friend succeeding, you also want to, you develop self-motivation to raise the level..
I'm a high school student and with us if you fail the test and everyone else fails then you have a "friend in trouble" you don't care if you didn't pass but if your best friend passed..
The next test you prepare by sitting yourself on the chair and not moving until you know all the material..
Copying - there are these "heroes" who show off next to you that they didn't study for the test and got a better grade than a student like you who sat a week before and prepared..
Laziness - today who has the strength to study?! Everyone wants to be pampered today, every child who doesn't succeed is told that he is retarded, take Ritalin..No!! It's not that the child doesn't know, it's that the child doesn't learn!
Potential - there are those who are born geniuses, quick absorption, concentration and attention beyond the ability of a normal child..
I hope you are paying attention to all the features and variables I mentioned..[and there are more]
Not everything is ability..!!
I agree that the talk of equality (women men and races)
is not detached from socialist ideologies.
Personally, I think that the difference between people is greater than the difference between races, etc. Investing in encouragement and education is important whether there is a difference in talents or not.
I don't take seriously all the talk about the differences between men and women
(such as spatial vision, self-discipline, verbal ability, etc.).
There used to be people who claimed that there was no advantage in women or blacks and that's all
The white men are more capable.
Today it's the opposite, every time it changes and different people say what their heart desires.
There are weak people who are trampled by society and there are geniuses. There are weaklings she rules and there are geniuses.
I am not a man or white, I am me.
I don't understand all this commotion.
Every time one study comes out with evidence - even the faintest - of the mathematical ability of girls - it gets an opening in the style of "now it's scientific" while hundreds of studies proving the opposite don't make such a fuss.
The reason for trying to prove equality between the sexes does not stem, in my opinion, from the desire to discover the truth but from completely different motives - just like the desire to prove equality between the races.
No one will dispute that women - on average - are more successful in tests of vocabulary and identifying an object in a pile of objects, but the advantages of the male brain in spatial perception and mathematical thinking are difficult for people to accept and they jump at every opportunity to go against it.
I have read many (yes! scientific!) studies on the subject and the most unequivocal conclusion of all is that spatial perception and mathematical thinking are better in men.
One of the studies (published many years ago in Scientific American) even examined and found a comparison between boys and girls in kindergarten (who could hardly be influenced by the environment) and girls (who looked like girls and were the size of girls, but whose female anatomy was due to insensitivity to androgens while their sex chromosomes were XY ) showed - in tests of spatial perception and mathematical thinking - advantages similar to those of the boys - over the "standard" girls.
It should also be understood that PISA tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment) - who test the knowledge learned in school - do not test the mathematical talent at all but only the degree of internalization of the material taught in the schools and they are not a suitable tool for evaluating the talent that will eventually be expressed in innovations, discoveries and inventions.
In order to test the innate tendency at such a young age - an age where most of the knowledge is the result of study and not of thinking - other tests are needed.
To Roy, I don't remember that geniuses received encouragement and reinforcements from the environment. And on the contrary, beware of poor people, which means that a difficult environment brings special abilities. So where are all the genius women?
"In my opinion, it is worthwhile to investigate the real reason hidden behind the urge to prove the equality between women and men through speculations and theories."
In the same way you can say that it is worth investigating the real reason behind the urge to prove the equality between blacks and whites through speculations and theories. Personally, I think we should give it another hundred or two hundred years before drawing any conclusions. Less than 150 years ago they still thought (a professor at Harvard published a book about this!) that giving a woman an education would harm her fertility.
B,
You misunderstood me. I say we need more facts and less theories. I simply demand to limit the conclusions to the facts we have at the moment.
Cool,
I actually know about evolution, a little. Nevertheless, I read and write about her here and there. I also know about the human mind, a little. Not much. But here's the interesting thing - no one knows everything about the potential of the human mind and how exactly education affects it. Not me, not you and not anyone else. Every assertion of yours - or mine - regarding the potential brain capacities of women compared to men in a completely equal world, is based on previous and sometimes ancient opinions.
Your evolutionary psychology argument is an old and familiar one, and there are many scientists who disagree with it. His supporters give examples that seem perfect for him, but there are also cases that are difficult to explain with his help. Either way, I think you're forgetting that we're not monkeys anymore. We don't groom our wives thirty times a day (a fact I'm sure they cherish too thanks for it) like the chimpanzees, and our young, lusty daughters don't walk around town with red, inflamed buttocks like the baboons. Analogies can be drawn, of course, but this can be done for anything, on any subject. In the end, we are no longer monkeys, and it is important to draw a line when trying to compare behaviors.
I will conclude that although an evolution of millions of years could indeed have led to a certain submission of the female monkeys, it is very difficult to say what happened in the evolutionary transition from monkey to man. Our brains have changed to such an extent that it is difficult to say with certainty what the raw mental abilities of each of us are. It is possible that women, who have been necessarily submissive during most of the years of mankind, have no less capacity than men in their minds. It's also possible not. I don't want to commit and make statements, because that would just be stupid. We do not yet have all the data for such unequivocal statements.
If it was once thought that women were less good at math than men, now the current research comes and disproves this point. Maybe in ten years they will find that when raising children in a completely egalitarian society, both sexes show the same spirit of adventure. maybe not. All I am saying here is that one should not give in to gut feelings on such an important matter, but conduct serious research on the subject.
point,
Let's go step by step:
1. People cultivate extraordinary mental abilities following some encouragement. It could be a nice grandfather who helps, or a teacher who encourages, but there is almost always some kind of encouragement.
2. Until recently (and recently) women hardly received such encouragement. If they did, they received it much less than men.
3. Therefore it is logical and even probable that there will be far fewer women on the list of 'geniuses' than men.
4. Therefore, it is not possible to use the argument that there are more men than women in the list of geniuses, and determine from it that women have less mental capacity or motivation than men.
parable.
Good night,
Roy.
What will prove the matter beyond any doubt is a survey that my father will conduct on the type of readers on the science website.
It reminds me of the following comic:
http://xkcd.com/385/
And by the way, I did study in Bar-Ilan's program a decade ago, but I remember that about forty percent were girls.
Roy Cezana
What you say, don't confuse my brain with the facts, live the theory and the fluff.
In my opinion, it is worthwhile to investigate the real reason behind the urge to prove the equality between women and men through speculations and theories.
The presentation of the artificial equality actually gives you an unfair advantage, a blow under the belt.
Just as if you convinced a featherweight wrestler that he is completely equal in strength to the heaviest weight wrestler. In reality he will just mow it down.
In my humble opinion, this is what is hidden behind the desire for equality.
It is easy to see this for example in all the communist regimes that existed and still exist.
A. Thanks for the demo, bless you.
To Roy, this is not a serious claim, with a degree of certainty you can claim that women were forced to stay at home, because they did not succeed in anything..
Those geniuses who succeeded succeeded on their own and above the constraints of society, and your claim only shows that it is true to say that there have never been women who have risen above the ordinary and silly.
Roy Cezana.. You probably don't know evolution - what it is.
Evolution does not happen overnight, and until a few thousand years ago human life was as I described it. Therefore, there is an evolutionary adaptation of traits to the roles of thousands of years ago, and not according to the last hundred years (as you, for some reason, think).
It is quite well known that people are born with basic knowledge and desires, and usually the desire of women is different from the desire of men (according to the evolutionary adaptation). The "physical" division that society produces indeed sometimes increases this division (perhaps for historical evolutionary reasons?).
What I'm saying is that women can do as much as they can and as much as they want, but sometimes in certain fields men have a natural tendency to bypass them in the round. Likewise in other fields where women are much better than men (although even in these fields the upper bar belongs to men, but it is really determined by desire and investment)
I don't quite understand whether I should be offended by the comparison to monkeys... all in all, they are not that different from us, and the division of roles among them is no different from the division of roles among humans a few thousand years ago..
And I wouldn't be at all surprised if there would be a clear advantage for male monkeys over female monkeys in tests such as formal analogies.
point,
The list can be continued much more. And as I have already said, it does not indicate anything, except for the fact that the vast majority of women (over 99%) have been forced to stay at home and take care of children for all the years of human existence.
By the way, I saw a program on Channel 8 about a chess player who tells about her experiences in her youth. Believe it or not, the chess club was not ready to accept her into its ranks, and the men there did not take her seriously and did not want to play against her.
Maybe it's a little less strange now, the fact that the best chess players in the world are men. And if such a phenomenon repeated itself throughout history, in most 'male' fields, why is it difficult to find women who excelled in these fields, or even took an active part in them?
cool responder,
If we look at the monkeys and apes, it seems that they have a very defined division of roles, which seems to come from childhood. It is probably an instinctive product. But humans have advanced a little (just a little, let's face it) more than the apes. It is likely that although women and men do think differently from each other, the common parts are more than the different. Unlike monkeys, we have self-awareness and the ability to articulate, understand and recognize ourselves. All of these can make a woman decide to study in a certain direction, and perhaps also succeed in it. Maybe no less than men. And perhaps this is what the results of the study presented here describe.
And again I repeat - it is difficult to find absolute evidence that ignores the multitude of possible side factors responsible for 'excess intelligence' or in the opposite direction.
Art: painting, sculpture, poetry, etc. The best of all time were male.
Science: mathematics, physics, medicine, etc. The best of all time were men.
Sports: basketball, swimming, running, etc. The best of all time were the stronger sex.
Miscellaneous: chess, checkers, backgammon, etc. The best were people.
This way the list can go on.
In any case, it is important to note that most men and women are stupid enough for these facts to make some feel smart and others feel deprived.
Men don't think like women.
It's a fact, anyone who doesn't get it is blind.
The question is in which specific subjects (parts of the brain, forms of thinking) does this manifest. And the problem is that in every field of study many thinking styles and many thinking "units" are involved in the brain, therefore it is difficult to diagnose the differences between women and men.
One of the main explanations for this fact is evolution, which gave each species abilities according to its role (man-hunter, strength, navigation, accuracy | woman-ability to feed her children, teach them, develop their personalities and seduce the men who will take care of them)
I just want to mention the https://www.hayadan.org.il/men-women-and-extreme-male-brain-040408/
who hesitantly points to "democratic/egalitarian" differences.
Full disclosure: I completed 5 math units with a final grade of 98 as part of Bar Ilan's program, and in our class there were only six girls. I have a rather extreme male brain, so out of cold calculation I want to break an emotional axiom.
Women from the dawn of history chose the strongest, wisest, successful men, etc., while men preferred breasts as large as possible and a general appearance that indicates fertility.
The results of these preferences can be seen today in the barrenness when checking the presence of women in the list of Nobel Prize winners and on the other hand the presence of men in advertisements for shampoo and soft drinks. Women have nothing to complain about, this is the result of choices and evolutions they made back when they were in the cave.
point,
I would appreciate it if you provided a reference for your first claim.
Mr. B,
I have already explained the problem inherent in making blanket claims like yours from factual statistics, based on many factors. Like it or not, women are not given the same status as men in the pursuit of a career even in the 21st century, let alone in the centuries that preceded it. As a result, no real meaning can be derived from surveys such as 'how many women have won the Fields Prize'.
Am I saying here that the intelligence of women is on average the same as that of men? Of course not. All I'm saying is that raw intelligence cannot be gleaned from these statistics, as it can be influenced by countless factors other than innate intelligence. Maybe women are on average as smart as men, maybe not. In my opinion, no studies have been done that would point unequivocally in one direction or the other, while neutralizing all factors except congenital ones. Therefore, it seems foolish to me to jump to far-reaching conclusions such as those written here.
Abi, could you make sure that comments originating from women are colored pink and appear at the end of the page in Gutman Yad font?
Terrifying*:] Good evening
And I wonder to myself what and why all the commotion? To all the caterers, it sounds like you're scared! This is just an article, and some of the commenters really went out of their way to secure their "top" spot, one shook his head and advised not to drive with women, just like all the Neanderthals.
Equality is bloody and I see it every day. A tiny fraction of my lecturers at the Technion are women, and the students judge them harshly, and they have to withstand much harsher criticism than the lecturers. (In my opinion, some are good and some are bad, just like the lecturers of the opposite sex).
This article has nothing to do with our personal lives and yet when they come to take the last "argument" that the woman's place in the kitchen (because she is limited like a disabled person) pops up chauvinists who are horrified by the idea and kick them to the core.
From a scientific factual point of view:
1) The elite of the women are inferior in various types of intelligence to the men.
2 The rest of the men and women are infinitely idiotic.
If women, don't drive!
Some notes:
1. There is no such animal in statistics - proof *clearly* that there is no difference. In a clear way it is only possible to prove that there is a difference.
2. The matter with standard deviation here is *much* more important than the mean. In a rough generalization, an average can affect the number of engineers in a country, the standard deviation will determine the number of Nobel winners ("the top thousand of the Gaussian")
3. In a similar context see this:
http://www.notes.co.il/greengross/42231.asp
Both genders are equal in abilities. In men, in my opinion, there is a built-in drive for achievements and will create a competitiveness that is on average higher than that of women.
These are the character traits and not the mental ability that creates the clear differences in the achievements of the species throughout the generations.
I personally believe that there is equality between the sexes at the intellectual level and the section of discoveries in science - if I check what the average age of those talented scientists is, it seems to be well over 30. Now we will see the life span of average people in their 30s. Most families already have children or are on the way because of this position. It mostly falls on the woman. It turns out that many women, even if they are engaged in the field, cannot engage continuously and cannot even if they wanted to engage and invest 100 percent, therefore there will always be a gap in discoveries. This does not go in a straight line if the ratio of boys to girls in science
The research conclusions are wrong
What are the findings of the study: in the USA there is a gap of 10 points to the detriment of girls and in Sweden there are no differences at all. In Turkey there is a gap of 27 points against the girls
However, the identical success of boys and girls in mathematics in Sweden does not necessarily result from complete equality that supposedly exists there
It is possible, for example, that in these countries (Sweden and its neighbors) there is affirmative discrimination against girls as in Israel they are trying to create for members of minorities
In other words, it is possible that there are differences in access to science for the benefit of girls in these countries
In addition, there may be social gaps in these countries in favor of girls since there are more government officials than ministers in these countries.
That is, if the social disparities in these countries are in favor of the girls, then seemingly the girls should have been more successful than the boys. However, this is not so according to the study (there is equality according to the study)
All studies claiming equality between races, sexes and religions reek of American political correctness
Roy Cezana
He is what I said this is the entire list if you tried the male list it would not have entered here.
And apart from that, none of the breakthroughs have ever been fundamental milestones in the paving of technological, scientific, cultural progress and, in fact, any progress in any field. Take all the professions they are all great discoveries to the world made by men. And all the pious statistical claims will not help to change that.
Winning big prizes as a partnership due to the political correctness of the prize committees will not change the situation. Has there been one woman in history who received the Fields Prize? Give an example.
Roy,
Statistics lie very easily. When you check the average of male 'geniuses' compared to the average of female 'geniuses', you can get very biased results.
There were interesting studies that showed that from a very young age, parents educate children in science, and girls in the opposite direction. It starts with answers to children in science museums, for example. A male child who asks why the ball floats on the water will get a profound answer. A girl asking the same question will get a much simpler answer, if at all. It doesn't always happen, but it happens enough. And such a girl simply will not become a genius. Here you have a big chunk of the missed statistics.
Add the fact that society encourages - and many societies also oblige - women to give birth to children and take care of them. Such women give up their careers in many cases, or have to balance family life with a scientific career, which can harm both. Another chunk of the statistics went.
What is the definition of a genius? Is a genius the one who wins the Nobel Prize? After all, there was discrimination against women in the selection of candidates for the Nobel Prize. Is a genius a university professor? There are still faculties where women have to be much better than men to get their own lab.
So what is left of the original statistics you presented?
B,
I quote your words:
"Genius and virtuosity require character traits that do not exist in the female genetic dictionary... Breakthroughs require an unusual character. Ignoring what others think. Absolute precision in purpose to obsession. Courage to risk and gamble and go on the edge..."
This is a very big claim. How does it fit with, for example,
Madame Curie - winner of the Nobel Prize twice, in two different fields of science, for the discovery of radium and polonium and for the discovery of the radiation property of materials.
Rosalind Franklin - was a full partner in deciphering the structure of DNA, but her part in history was omitted... probably due to her being a woman.
Lady Mary Montague - brought the smallpox vaccine to Europe, against the entire medical establishment in the 18th century.
Laura Bassi - brought Newtonian mechanics and physics to Italy, and had her own laboratory. All this in the 18th century, when the stated role of women was to sit at home and take care of the children. Let's just say that it took a lot of obsession and adherence to the goal to get where she got.
Mother Teresa - fought with 'holy' devotion to save people in the most neglected areas of the world in her time.
and so on and so on. There were, by the way, 35 Nobel Prize winners. And this is when most women around the world cannot choose their employment.
In my humble humble opinion, you are missing the mark...
I agree with the article that on average, women have the same mathematical ability as men, I disagree that this means women can bring about a scientific breakthrough like men.
The emphasis here is on the average. In my estimation (you can check for those who have the data), the standard deviation and the width of the distribution for boys is much larger than for women. This means that there will be many more boys who are weak in mathematics, but of course more geniuses, and therefore the geniuses will have more successes. In women, most of them are around the same level, and there are not too many geniuses or, on the other hand, retards (although in both cases it is difficult for us to understand them)
Hanan Sabat
There are quite a few women in the community of mathematicians, but when it comes to significant breakthroughs outside of a very small number of contributions and not just the French woman who corresponded with Gauss, the number tends to zero. It is the same in all technological breakthroughs and not only in music painting architecture. Have you come across a composer or a painter whose pictures sell for millions or a composer whose works have become classics or in psychology or economics.
Technical ability is certainly the property of the female sex without a doubt precisely because of the qualities of consistency and punctuality and self-discipline that women are highly endowed with.
But precisely these qualities are the exact opposite of what requires a new breakthrough in thinking, you will not find that among the women.
Genius and virtuosity require character traits that do not exist in the female genetic dictionary Women are generally born more balanced and practical and conformist in contrast Breakthroughs require an unusual character Ignoring what others think Complete precision in the goal to the point of obsession Courage to risk and gamble and go to the limit and other complementary qualities that are precisely related to the aggressiveness that the male hormones give and genetics.
Answer to B:
1. Until the 19th century, very few women received an academic education at all. The academic world was simply closed to most of them. That's why the number of female scientists was extremely low, even though some of them reached incredible achievements when they were allowed to reach the academy (Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, Jean Goodall, etc.).
3. Today, most applicants for exact science studies are men (although the situation is gradually balancing out). The phenomenon depends more on society and not on abilities or knowledge. The male society encourages men to engage in professions of technology and exact sciences. Women are more directed to occupations related to the humanities and social sciences. It's not about abilities.
4. There were women who did contribute to the solution of Fermat's hypothesis (for inflation in the 19th century).
5. Give time a chance.... The more female mathematicians and scientists there are in the fields of exact sciences, the higher the chance that their quality will increase.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
These tests have no value when it comes to the ability to create significant breakthroughs and developments in elementary areas of mathematics. The number of sensational mathematical developments such as the solution of Fermat's and Poincaré's hypothesis and other significant advances made by women tends to zero.