And on this we agree; apart from diction, what is the difference between what we each wrote? I conceded that the study shows infant boys, on average, out peform infant girls in spatial reasoning, while noting (as the article does) that a given girl can still do as well (or possibly better) than any boy--but the opposite is significantly more likely, on average. That's the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of your article,
"Neuroscience research, including MRI studies of male and female brains, suggests that brain function -- along with related hormonal differences -- creates a tendency for males to have better spatial thinking skills, and females to be stronger in some realms of verbal expression," which the rest of that and the following pargraph state in more detail. Good find, BUT--you skipped the parts before and after that say 2) overall math achievement is equal, 3) stereotypes inhibit performance by teaching girls to expect failure and 4) actively teaching ALL students to a given standard of spatial reasoning itself can normalize what difference exists. YOUR article; I didn't make it up--you're just acting like it.

You want the "reasoning" behind the "blanket statement" in the fourth sentence of YOUR article, "'For math in general, I don’t think there’s much cognitive difference between boys and girls....' and its sixth paragraph as well as the first sentence of the seventh, "Noted Liben, spatial thinking is just a single math-related skill. 'If you look at math achievement, for example in coursework, girls do as well as boys'"? Ask THEM they're reasons; it's not my job to vet your source--or read it for you.

Immediately after YOUR source makes an argument you dismissed as mine, it makes the next argument I DIRECTLY QUOTED (see the pattern? ) but you STILL dismissed as "just an argument to ignore reality because we don't like it". Is your source credible or not? The rest of the paragraph in full, is "She [Liben] and others have found that stereotypes about girls and math affect a student’s motivation to study it. 'If girls think they don’t do well in a subject, they have a diminished interest in it.'"

Again, since I must be explicit: Remember I kept saying it's inconsistent to accept academic statements that boys outperform girls in math, then call those same sources claims of bias "politics"? That's exactly what you just did! The study started with infants but, wonder of wonders, they decided to base a conclusion about boys and girls as a group on more than infants, went at least as far as middle school instead. Yet when I directly quote YOUR authority, it's "just an argument to ignore reality because we don't like it". That's simply stunning, truly.

When they got to middle school, what did they do about the girls disadvantage in spatial reasoning (which YOUR article says "is just a single math-related skill. 'If you look at math achievement, for example in coursework, girls do as well as boys. '" )?

Actually, it appears, according to YOUR article (yet again), to be a statement of faith AND science; to answer my own above question, THIS is what they did for middle school: "With psychologist Margaret Signorella at Penn State Greater Allegheny and engineer Sheryl Sorby at Michigan Tech, Liben is developing a program that will teach spatial skills to middle school students, to see if that increases not only their spatial skills, but also their interest in taking math and science courses and pursuing math and science careers.

Liben said families and schools should recognize that spatial thinking is a skill that is just as important as reading. If we want our children -- boys and girls alike -- to have this skill, 'start with blocks, puzzles, building toys, and shape-sorting toys. These all encourage spatial thinking.' Keep it up, and those lonely male engineers will soon have a few more female colleagues. "

Wow, kids who play with blocks are more likely to become engineers than kids who play with, I dunno, DOLLS. If kids, regardless of sex, are taught spatial reasoning to the same level, and their interests in math and science nurtured, the sexual connection with achievement levels MIGHT become negligible. It's almost as if--and I know this is a shocker--SEX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE! *faints dead away*

I didn't say achievement is equal "to a point" or otherwise; YOUR article said, "'If you look at math achievement, for example in coursework, girls do as well as boys. '" Note the period. Note also that the words "to a point" neither precede or succeed that period. Instead it's succeeded by something that could easily account for perceived sexual differences, at any point, "She and others have found that stereotypes about girls and math affect a student’s motivation to study it. 'If girls think they don’t do well in a subject, they have a diminished interest in it. '"

You cherry picked the article for statements supporting your view, and reacted to my mentioning the parts that didn't as if I manufactured them. I'm half surprised you didn't dismiss the whole thing because all the scientists involved happen to be women. But YOUR article (not I) reports several key things:

1) Tests show that, on average, infants boys have better spatial reasoning than infant girls,

2) Because math consists of far more than spatial reasoning overall achievement levels are roughly equal,

3) Stereotypes create an expectation of failure that discourages female achievement and

4) Teaching spatial reasoning, specifically, to the same standard for all kids could remedy both 1) and 2) (and probably much else).

The biggest implication seems to be that despite math and science ABILITY not being dependent on sex (point 2), INTERESTS (and thus careers) in them very much are, due to point 3). I'm not trivializing or ignoring physiological predispositions, I'm saying that stimulating and encouraging interests weigh far more heavily. We can't say no women could become NFL athletes because I'm not aware of any who've tried; the closest I've heard anyone coming is this. It doesn't seem like many women are interested, and most of the ones who have been usually get the kind of reaction you'd expect, so it's hardly surprising if they don't stick with something that's fun for you and me and nothing but grief for them.

Pity you didn't read all of it....