I used YOUR article to "prove" what it says outright. 
- Edit 1
- Edit 1Before modification by Joel at 15/01/2011 05:36:51 PM
Here is a study that shows significantly different spatial skills already appearing in infants. It doesn’t offer an explanation for why there is a difference but offers evidence that is hard to argue with short expanding the sampling size to rule out errors.
We shouldn't ignore evidence just because we don't like the implications. We also shouldn’t over read it, I wouldn’t discourage my daughter from being an engineer.
Which is a shame, 'cos I'd like to see the study, but it's also easily fixed.
Expanding samples to reduce error is always a good idea, which is one of the benefits of multiple studies, but beyond a certain point you get marginal returns. *resists the urge to discuss FL exit polling in 2000 and 2004* 
1) We have a study that indicates infant boys, as a whole, tend to have better spatial reasoning than infant girls, while noting that doesn't preclude individual girls performing as well, just that it's more common in boys,
We have a study that shows infant to do considerably better then infant girls at spatial reasoning. Nobody is claiming that girls can't do just that boys on average do it better. The study supports the argument that the average boy will do better then the average girl but that some girls will do better then the average boy. Which is what I have been saying all along.
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.
<2) Overall, math achievement is roughly equal, because spatial reasoning is just one aspect of math ability,
Sorry but as I mentioned before blanket statement do not qualify as arguments. Do you have any reasoning to back up that claim? Now girls do as well in the early math classes as boys higher math requires spatial reasoning so no they are not equal.
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.
3) "If girls think they don’t do well in a subject, they have a diminished interest in it". I'd say that applies to all students; people who expect to fail usually find a way to make it happen, regardless of their sex, and probably the number of boys who suck at cooking is similar to the number of girls who suck at math because of social sexual norms, but most importantly,
That is just an argument to ignore reality because we don't like it. Do you have a study that shows boys under perform girls in some critical cooking skill? Do you have some study that shows men under perform women in the highest levels of cooking?
The study was done with infants to remove the argument that social norms were playing a factor.
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. '" )?
4) None of the preconditioning involved in that, either biological or social, is set in stone, and at the end of the day the success of any one child in any one area will have more to do with individual ability as well as the ability of educators and parents to stimulate interest and encourage performance than it has to do with either the subject or the students sex.
that is statement of faith not science. No matter how badly a girls wants to be a NFL football player she never will and not because the boys want let her but because she just won't be good enough. She will be to small, to weak and to slow.
Natural ability does matter. all of the education in the world will make a long term impact on IQ test results. It is possible that we can develop early learning education that will improve spatial skills but unless it only helps females it will simply raise the bar.
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*
There appears to be a sex advantage IN ONE AREA, overall achievement is roughly equal, at least to a point, but girls tend to have less interest in math because they're expected to perform more poorly; nevertheless, most developmentally normal children can succeed in any field if what native ability they have is stimulated and encouraged. Perhaps that's the biggest factor in what IS "developmentally normal".
It is critical area. You say there is equal achievement to point but you are ignoring that it is the point where things get hard and where math really starts to matter. Saying you do well at math except for geometry and calculus means you are not good at higher math. Not being good at higher math means you will have a hell of time do most hard science.
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 support it as if I pulled them out of thin air. I'm half surprised you didn't dismiss the whole thing because all of the scientists involved happened to be women. But, as I said, 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.
Thanks for the link, it was quite interesting.
Pity you didn't read all of it....