Stillfire:


Lemme give you an an example. My mentor in university, an older white woman with a doctorate, certified in her field, collaborated with a fellow male scientist. She did most of the work, it was her idea, it went well. She happened to get his resume, you needed to see what he wrote, you would think he was the principal investigator with the way he exaggerated his role in the research project. Who do you think would get hired? Who do you think would be paid more? Nobody told her to go and redo her own resume. Why did she tell me this? She said she noticed that girls are socialized to be modest - the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities. Which I definitely agreed to. Now modesty is not bad, but never carry it into your life ambitions. But you find out girls carry that trait into situations that require Assertiveness, doggedness, which we socialize boys to have. And girls who understand this dynamic like my humble self are demonized for having assertive traits.

wait a minute........
so men should be blamed just because women are generally not as ambitious as the men? how's that the men's or the society's fault?

i can very much relate to what happened to your mentor in the unit. i have seen it play out right in front of my very eyes during contract negotiations.

women tend to take the first offer on the plate while men tend to haggle their fees till the cows come home. after all said & done, the same women would start crying that there's a gender discrimination lurking somewhere.

i don't have a problem with your assertive traits. we actually want to see such in women every now & then. don't just blame us men for the women who have decided to carry their modesty into their life ambitions.

Stillfire:


Lemme give you an an example. My mentor in university, an older white woman with a doctorate, certified in her field, collaborated with a fellow male scientist. She did most of the work, it was her idea, it went well. She happened to get his resume, you needed to see what he wrote, you would think he was the principal investigator with the way he exaggerated his role in the research project. Who do you think would get hired? Who do you think would be paid more? Nobody told her to go and redo her own resume. Why did she tell me this? She said she noticed that girls are socialized to be modest - the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities. Which I definitely agreed to. Now modesty is not bad, but never carry it into your life ambitions. But you find out girls carry that trait into situations that require Assertiveness, doggedness, which we socialize boys to have. And girls who understand this dynamic like my humble self are demonized for having assertive traits.

true with all you are saying infact what you said here reminds me of what Chimamanda Adichie also said,when i first found out about her this year,i knew she's definetly an inspiration to me and many others too

Stillfire:


Yeah you missed it. I posted it on the first or second page. Look for it. Nigerian women roughly have the same rates as Western women



The premise of my argument between TV01 and I, was not about entering the STEM but about the girl child completing it. This would help push our numbers up. At the moment, our drop out rates are high. And one of the factors that limits the girl child are familial circumstances and sexist tendencies like this.

https://www.nairaland.com/2251479/why-modern-woman-sad

Why aim high, when you should be aiming to be a wife?



It is not an assertion. It is an opinion considering the pace at which their foremothers started on, Western women should be doing better.

Ah, thanks I've been looking for numbers from Nigeria for sometime now and was able to see it in the source link from which your initial post was based on.(http://www.ncsu.edu/aern/TAS11.2/TAS11.2_10Udeani.pdf)

My second question still remains and while it may be a tad pedantic I think this should be addressed. Misogyny is basically woman hate or hatred of women so one is curious to see or understand how women are prevented from entering STEM because of misogyny. Understand that I have singled out this term because it gets flung about as one of the major cultural attitudes that holds women back, I am not denying that girls are raised differently I just want to see the 'woman hatred' in this.

I am willing to put down my money that even if we remove the present day (cultural) barriers that keep women from STEM in Nigeria/Africa we will still have this case of under-representation. The nature of the STEM fields are such that the majority of women do not find them appealing; strip away all forms of acculturation and see how many women, in relation to men, get excited by the thought of working long hours in laboratories, rigs or workshops. Many women will still find the rigours of STEM incongruent with their natural leanings no matter what. A parallel to this argument can be found in the military; even if you prod and encourage them religiously many women, in relation to men, will still be hesitant in participating in units of the forces where hardcore infantry operations are the staples. The reasons for this have less to do with laziness per se and more to do with natural dispositions.

bukatyne:
One of the things that I really strongly believe in is that we need to have more girls interested in math, science, and engineering. We’ve got half the population that is way underrepresented in those fields and that means that we’ve got a whole bunch of talent…not being encouraged the way they need to.”

-- President Barack Obama, February 2013

The development of world-class talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is critical to America’s global leadership. The Obama administration understands that fostering an open and diverse scientific community that draws from an array of unique experiences and viewpoints is a necessary step to realizing this goal.

Supporting women STEM students and researchers is not only an essential part of America’s strategy to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world; it is also important to women themselves. Women in STEM jobs earn 33 percent more than those in non-STEM occupations and experience a smaller wage gap relative to men. And STEM careers offer women the opportunity to engage in some of the most exciting realms of discovery and technological innovation. Increasing opportunities for women in these fields is an important step towards realizing greater economic success and equality for women across the board.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy, in collaboration with the White House Council on Women and Girls, is dedicated to increasing the participation of women and girls — as well as other underrepresented groups — in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics by increasing the engagement of girls with STEM subjects in formal and informal environments, encouraging mentoring to support women throughout their academic and professional experiences, and supporting efforts to retain women in the STEM workforce.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/women

We also have WISE ... a campaign to promote women in STEM with this goal... Our mission is to get 1 million more women in the UK STEM workforce. https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/

Now the reason for this thread:

Must more ladies be enrolled into STEM courses? Must there be a gender based quota as regards the enrollment into STEM courses?

I am not against encouraging more ladies to join STEM courses; I am against making people feel STEM courses are more important than non - STEM courses because that is the reason behind pushing more ladies into STEM irrespective of their personal interest. That is why we also see a number of ladies drop out of them after school.

Yes, a person in STEM night earn more than a non-STEM however, money alone does not determine the importance of a profession.

If a lady is not in an environment that discriminates against women in STEM courses, then she should be guided to choose a profession based on her strengths and personality. That why, the society can benefit maximally from them.

We humans have the ability to adopt different passion and strength, the State however should know where its lacking and encourage people to step up to meet that.
If it is manpower, get some more robot operated machine or take in some healthy desperate immigrants(egcase of soldiers).
Take for instance, lets say I have a passion for cleaning and also mending clothes growing up. Then one day i saw a lizard and decided to open its stomach, then stitch it back to see if it will survive. However, it died same day.

In American society, i could pass off as a designer, housewife, and/or medical doctor( you think it's easy to open a live lizard). To pass off as a medical doctor i might not need any encouragement because i see a lot around me.i just need to learn more about that.
However, In Nigerian society, if i don't have a good mentor my chances of becoming a doctor will be less than 5 percent considering how the society keep stressing on how many yards material of a housewife you should be, money factor, jamb factor etc. I might even go the suicide terror route of beheading people.

In nut shell, what am saying is the primary passion and strength is not enough, you still have to need that extra push to discover your secondary passion and strength.
This is where knowledge comes in.
The Average Nigerian Woman is thinking more about getting married and raising children.This is what the society is and has been singing for them.
look at that tomboy female footballer, even in her Instagram page they are telling her to get the body programmed for women not even considering her passion in what she does.
The State(Society) sometimes has a major input in the choice people make. Be it negative or positive.
We only need to focus on the positive for a better society.

Yes, it is very necessary that more women are 'PUSHED' into STEM fields. So many ladies have been told they can't do one thing or the other because they are female, you don't want to chase prospective suitors away and all that nonsense right from when they were kids. Let me give 2 instances to buttress my point.

1.when I was in secondary school, I had this close classmate, we were like 13yrs old. One day we were talking about what we wanted to be and what we wanted to do after university. I told her I wanted to buy a car and build a house, she asked what about getting married, I told her I was sure going to get married.
She replied "ha, Jade! Don't you know if you have those things no man will want to marry you? I said so what if I can afford it and I need it? She said It's best you don't get those things cos it scares men away.
Obviously she had been trained to believe that dulling her shine is what will get her a husband. This is the kind of training a lot of girls get in Nigeria.

2. In my last class at secondary school our male physics teacher was asking what we wanted to study in the University, when I told him MINE, He said you are a very intelligent little girl but why don't you go for something like(went on to suggest some courses he considered feminine) his reason was that It will allow me have more time to take care of my family when I get married because I am a lady.

That said, There is something called CLASSICAL CONDITIONING in psychology and this is why most females tend towards non-stem courses even unconsciously because the notion that ladies should do ladylike course is already in their subconscious mind.

jadelyn007:
Yes, it is very necessary that more women are 'PUSHED' into STEM fields. So many ladies have been told they can't do one thing or the other because they are female, you don't want to chase prospective suitors away and all that nonsense right from when they were kids. Let me give 2 instances to buttress my point.

1.when I was in secondary school, I had this close classmate, we were like 13yrs old. One day we were talking about what we wanted to be and what we wanted to do after university. I told her I wanted to buy a car and build a house, she asked what about getting married, I told her I was sure going to get married.
She replied "ha, Jade! Don't you know if you have those things no man will want to marry you? I said so what if I can afford it and I need it? She said It's best you don't get those things cos it scares men away.
Obviously she had been trained to believe that dulling her shine is what will get her a husband. This is the kind of training a lot of girls get in Nigeria.

2. In my last class at secondary school our male physics teacher was asking what we wanted to study in the University, when I told him MINE, He said you are a very intelligent little girl but why don't you go for something like(went on to suggest some courses he considered feminine) his reason was that It will allow me have more time to take care of my family when I get married because I am a lady.

That said, There is something called CLASSICAL CONDITIONING in psychology and this is why most females tend towards non-stem courses even unconsciously because the notion that ladies should do ladylike course is already in their subconscious mind.

very true

More evidence that there is a biological dimension as to why the genders make certain choices.

http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf

Sexual dimorphism in sociability has been documented in humans. The present study aimed to
ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between
the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and
cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object)
and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger
interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the
face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in
origin. © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

ApexTitan:
More evidence that there is a biological dimension as to why the genders make certain choices.

http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf



More evidence for there is a biological dimension as to why the genders make certain choices.

i don't even need to read any research to know nature/biology limits women. a woman has to eschew femininity altogether to break that limit.

you see male kids with toy cars, toy guns, lego and things that require big risks & a huge mental task. you then see female kids with their nurturing instincts carrying & feeding barbie dolls.

are we saying these female infants have also been classically conditioned from birth to nurture? so no matter how you tell ladies to stick to STEM, the chicken would soon come back to the roost by taking jobs like teaching, secretaries/temps or knitting.

Stillfire:
The premise of my argument between TV01 and I, was not about entering the STEM but about the girl child completing it. This would help push our numbers up. At the moment, our drop out rates are high. And one of the factors that limits the girl child are familial circumstances and sexist tendencies like this.

Which basically "deads" your argument. So girls prove themselves capable of doing STEM, good enough to start - and then drop out? Any pressure would have been prior to starting. Once they start - whether they faced a lot of pressure or none, good or bad - the end result lies squarely with them.

What the high drop out rates signify, is;
1. They found they were not really up to it
2. Not really up for it
3. Even if they were up for it, they figured their real talents, greater gains or an easier life lie elsewhere

Stillfire:
So, you arrived at faulty hypothesis without carrying out an experiment to prove my hypothesis is faulty? Mr. man you can do better. All you had to say was ok, let's carry out this experiment on Naija girls. And this is simply a rate reaction , we would see an increase of girls in the STEM, if we decrease familial factors that hinders females. Are we going to deny that Nigerian girls are psychologically discouraged from going further in their endeavours but aspire to be wives first, defined by a husband? So why would a girl go into STEM, when your aspirations should be home economics . Boys are encouraged to be providers hence the doggedness to take financially rewarding courses of which a career in STEM stereotypically insinuates. There were a lot of 'last-carrying' boys in my class who should have just respected themselves and gone to less-tasking courses . Take away these limiting factors and let's see if the percentage of Nigerian women in STEM would not increase. Simple.

A hypothesis presented without proof does not require proof to be rebutted

To say that Nigerian girls are discouraged is disingenuous. Without any outside influence whatsoever, they would soon realise that the cost benefit of pursuing some of the harder, more rigorous courses - especially those that may mean harsher work conditions - did not accord with the lifestyles they wanted.

Newsflash - women are not just pressured to want children. It creational, or natural if you prefer. All society does is pass on recieved wisdom. We all have the liberty to demur.

And this is patently evidenced by the low rate of STEM take-up in the West. Not only do they wilfully eschew STEM due to their personal aspirations, they have a wider array of alternatives. And, alternatives that more closely align with their natural inclinations.

How many women would choose a hard hat over the wardrobe allowance of a TV presenter? Afterall, the bugly ones can always opt for radio . Which female would choose drilling for oil in desolate terrain over running a gossip blog? Only a very few exceptions.

And as for those "last carrying" boys, abeg free them. They labour under the knowledge that if they don't deliver, men will not respect them and women despise - if they actually acknowledge - them. Their burden, social expectation and the pressure they are under is far more punishing - as a certified "last-carrying" Joe, I can personally attest to that


TV

coogar:


wait a minute........
so men should be blamed just because women are generally not as ambitious as the men? how's that the men's or the society's fault?

i can very much relate to what happened to your mentor in the unit. i have seen it play out right in front of my very eyes during contract negotiations.

women tend to take the first offer on the plate while men tend to haggle their fees till the cows come home. after all said & done, the same women would start crying that there's a gender discrimination lurking somewhere.

i don't have a problem with your assertive traits. we actually want to see such in women every now & then. don't just blame us men for the women who have decided to carry their modesty into their life ambitions.

Arggh when did I blame men?
The example was to show how we are socialized differently. And how women need to be aware of these nuances that actually restrict them. Awon 'submissive spirit' things.
Nobody cites gender discrimination for pay differences any more, no need repeating it on every thread . I think it was forbes article that carried it and it was women that found that out themselves. This even helps my example on that modesty trait where they don't want to offend the other person so you price yourself lower than your worth.
You want to see those traits every now and then? Lol, not 'every now and then' but every darn time.

Stillfire:

Arggh when did I blame men?
The example was to show how we are socialized differently. And how women need to be aware of these nuances that actually restrict them. Awon 'submissive spirit' things.

what are these nuances?

Nobody cites gender discrimination for pay differences any more, no need repeating it on every thread . I think it was forbes article that carried it and it was women that found that out themselves. This even helps my example on that modesty trait where they don't want to offend the other person so you price yourself lower than your worth.

hmmmmm!
food for thought...

You want to see those traits every now and then? Lol, not 'every now and then' but every darn time.

ok....
we wanna see it every darn time.

ApexTitan:


Ah, thanks I've been looking for numbers from Nigeria for sometime now and was able to see it in the source link from which your initial post was based on.(http://www.ncsu.edu/aern/TAS11.2/TAS11.2_10Udeani.pdf)

My second question still remains and while it may be a tad pedantic I think this should be addressed. Misogyny is basically woman hate or hatred of women so one is curious to see or understand how women are prevented from entering STEM because of misogyny. Understand that I have singled out this term because it gets flung about as one of the major cultural attitudes that holds women back, I am not denying that girls are raised differently I just want to see the 'woman hatred' in this.
^
I am willing to put down my money that even if we remove the present day (cultural) barriers that keep women from STEM in Nigeria/Africa we will still have this case of under-representation. The nature of the STEM fields are such that the majority of women do not find them appealing; strip away all forms of acculturation and see how many women, in relation to men, get excited by the thought of working long hours in laboratories, rigs or workshops. Many women will still find the rigours of STEM incongruent with their natural leanings no matter what. A parallel to this argument can be found in the military; even if you prod and encourage them religiously many women, in relation to men, will still be hesitant in participating in units of the forces where hardcore infantry operations are the staples. The reasons for this have less to do with laziness per se and more to do with natural dispositions.

Concerning misogyny and its manifestations include hatred, belittling of women, seeing masculinity as superior to femininity. And guess who gets more belittling - women who do not conform to the set partriachial standards. Now any woman who wants to be loved and protected under partriachial institutions would need to follow the rules. And the rule from the past to today is that she aspires to be a wife first, a man's property. She then reasons that if societal expectations are to become a wife and avoid this patriarchal angst towards her womanhood, she has to appropriate her aspirations to family, hence we have a high drop out rate of women in STEM.
Me too I'm willing to put my money down that if we take away these cultural barriers our percentages would increase.

Stillfire:


Concerning misogyny and its manifestations include hatred, belittling of women, seeing masculinity as superior to femininity. And guess who gets more belittling - women who do not conform to the set partriachial standards. Now any woman who wants to be loved and protected under partriachial institutions would need to follow the rules. And the rule from the past to today is that she aspires to be a wife first, a man's property. She then reasons that if societal expectations are to become a wife and avoid this patriarchal angst towards her womanhood, she has to appropriate her aspirations to family, hence we have a high drop out rate of women in STEM.
Me too I'm willing to put my money down that if we take away these cultural barriers our percentages would increase.

I see, so you are angling for an increase in percentage and not gender parity in STEM? What percentage should we take as acceptable then?

Again your argument falls apart when we look at societies that have removed or greatly reduced these cultural barriers, the women in those places are still not entering STEM in droves as was hoped. Courses in humanities, social sciences and arts still command the majority of women's interests there and the "issue" of under-representation remains. This remains an "issue" or a problem that must be fixed only because activists and the likes close themselves to the possibility of there being a natural/biological basis for the reason why these gender choices are made. There is evidence that strongly suggests such a natural bias, factor this possibility into your considerations then re-appraise the situation.

The funny thing about this topic is the group of women who know in their heart of hearts that they find mathematics or engineering boring and unappealing but because it is now seen as the corner stone of national development turn around and claim that it was because of men/society/culture that they were prevented from entering those fields. (Cue that comic oga TV put up in the beginning of this thread. )

This one is for TV01 and ApexTitan:

[img]http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c1/fig01-03.gif[/img]

Black people are ALWAYS the weakest group. Nature or nurture?

Mindfulness:
This one is for TV01 and ApexTitan:

[img]http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c1/fig01-03.gif[/img]

Black people are ALWAYS the weakest group. Nature or nurture?

Why only me and TV why not Coogar, he has been arguing from our angle too...

That NCES graph is representative of performance results of ninth graders from a wide variety of backgrounds, meaning there are several factors like socio-economic background, quality of education, etc, that may make any conclusive findings as relates to Nature/Nuture completely superfluous. For you to relate the nature or nurture argument to academic performance by race you have to create test scenarios where each side of the dichotomy can be studied uninfluenced by the other, i.e, test under the nature side then test under the nurture side

However!!!

whatever the findings are from that inquiry it is completely independent and unrelated to the subject under discussion. Is this not is a classic red herring device?

ApexTitan:


Why only me and TV why not Coogar, he has been arguing from our angle too...

That NCES graph is representative of performance results of ninth graders from a wide variety of backgrounds, meaning there are several factors like socio-economic background, quality of education, etc, that may make any conclusive findings as relates to Nature/Nuture completely superfluous. For you to relate the nature or nurture argument to academic performance by race you have to create test scenarios where each side of the dichotomy can be studied uninfluenced by the other, i.e, test under the nature side then test under the nurture side

However!!!

whatever the findings are from that inquiry it is completely independent and unrelated to the subject under discussion. Is this not is a classic red herring device?

Good to know that there is a [size=18pt] variety of factors[/size] when it comes to race gaps but not when we talk about gender gaps.

Mindfulness:

Good to know that there is a [size=18pt] variety of factors[/size] when it comes to race gaps but not when we talk about gender gaps.

I should have tagged my reply to you as a red herring alert so no one gets sucked into that hole.

I dare you to show how academic performance in relation to ethnicity is in any form whatsoever related to Gender Disparity in STEM.

Mindfulness:
This one is for TV01 and ApexTitan:

[img]http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c1/fig01-03.gif[/img]

Black people are ALWAYS the weakest group. Nature or nurture?

AT has already responded - probably conclusively !

But let me add this; race is a social-cultural construct, which is at best a superficial attempt at broad-brush labelling. Human beiongs are sexually dimorphous. The only real categories of human are male and female.

Black, white, or gay, straight, or any other such notions are all fallacies merely used to push ideologies or agendas. Now, even if black/white was a thing, as AT has pointed out, we'd have to make that call on properly factored longitudinal studies.

And even if we did come to the conclusion that one "race" - see what I did there - had an edge over another in certain aspects, would it change a thing I have said? No. Equal opportunity and open access - and may the best man(or woman) win !

The truth is, even if women were simply brainier than men,their desires, choices and aspirations would probably mean they would always be under-represented in STEM fields.

And finally, as you seem to ascribe to racial notions, given the pre-ponderance of AA in the NBA, NFL etc., and how they are over-represented in sports in countries where they are a minority, given that the Olympics typically features 8 men (usually of West African descent), in the 100m final and black East Africans typically sweep the middle to long distance events, are black people physically superior to white people?

Stilly feel free to answer that last question !


TV

ApexTitan:


I should have tagged my reply to you as a red herring alert so no one gets sucked into that hole.

Do it. The reason why you want to do it is that you do not like the taste of your own medicine.

I dare you to show how academic performance in relation to ethnicity is in any form whatsoever related to Gender Disparity in STEM.

This is not the question. The question is why do Blacks perform worse than ALL OTHER ethnic groups in math?

TV01:

AT has already responded - probably conclusively !

But let me add this; race is a social-cultural construct, which is at best a superficial attempt at broad-brush labelling. Human beiongs are sexually dimorphous. The only real categories of human are male and female.

Black, white, or gay, straight, or any other such notions are all fallacies merely used to push ideologies or agendas. Now, even if black/white was a thing, as AT has pointed out, we'd have to make that call on properly factored longitudinal studies.

And even if we did come to the conclusion that one "race" - see what I did there - had an edge over another in certain aspects, would it change a thing I have said? No. Equal opportunity and open access - and may the best man(or woman) win !

The truth is, even if women were simply brainier than men,their desires, choices and aspirations would probably mean they would always be under-represented in STEM fields.

And finally, as you seem to ascribe to racial notions, given the pre-ponderance of AA in the NBA, NFL etc., and how they are over-represented in sports in countries where they are a minority, given that the Olympics typically features 8 men (usually of West African descent), in the 100m final and black East Africans typically sweep the middle to long distance events, are black people physically superior to white people?

Stilly feel free to answer that last question !


TV

Really?



I don't like to do it on a beautiful Saturday but I have to:

"[size=18pt]Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth.[/size] A study by Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differ- ences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size."

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf


It hurts me too TV01 and ApexTitan.

Mindfulness:


Really?



I don't like to do it on a beautiful Saturday but I have to:

"[size=18pt]Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth.[/size] A study by Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differ- ences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size."

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf


It hurts me too TV01 and ApexTitan.

Your pain is your own - and I have no balm for you .

Mens brains are typically bigger than womens - will you on that basis agree that men are more intelligent.?
This study is on Americans, and some of the "races" therein. Further, as already pointed out by both AT and myself, they are worthless is not correctly factored.

And like I've repeated ad infinitum, if all told, racial advantages are found, let everyone have equal opportunity and equal access - and may the best man win.

Intelligence is not a primary criteria for women in selecting a mate. So black men will always be kings.

Way to answer a question with a question - are you by any chance Nigerian . Not just herring, but a whole net of oily fish !


TV

Kimoni:
TV01 - I read OP's story and I thought of you. Some of the things he said about headship, providing leadership and direction for his family being non-negotiable sounded so like you 'twas like I was reading from you.

God help the OP, I feel for him. It's sometimes confusing if one should fight for true love in cases like this but I respect and applaud the OP decision based on his reasons.

Lemme read some comments...

Derail - please ignore.

Read it K. Agree with the outcome, but he went about it the wrong way - that should have been flagged somewhat earlier in his due dilligence. I also don't agee with his conclusion of ecumenism - just so he can fulfil his carnal love ! Again if his faith was that meaningful, it should have been an issue earlier. He was also somewhat presumptious. Maybe a younger version of me


TV

Mindfulness:


Do it. The reason why you want to do it is that you do not like the taste of your own medicine.

This is not the question. The question is why do Blacks perform worse than ALL OTHER ethnic groups in math?

You have a knack for introducing red herrings when you reach the limits of your logical leanings. Blacks could be worse performers in maths for WHATEVER reasons, yet you insist on linking that with why women do not take to STEM the way men do. Logic fail. Even the researchers in that area have not made any such connections to the gender disparity issues in STEM, perhaps you know something they don't?

Your position has been to ignore or deny the influence nature has in the vocational choices that the different genders make. The red herring you are latching onto even makes a case for natural influence Double logic failure on your part.

Did you even peruse the link I dropped yesterday? That one is relevant to what we are discussing, here it is just in case you missed it http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf

ApexTitan:


You have a knack for introducing red herrings when you reach the limits of your logical leanings. Blacks could be worse performers in maths for WHATEVER reasons, yet you insist on linking that with why women do not take to STEM the way men do. Logic fail. Even the researchers in that area have not made any such connections to the gender disparity issues in STEM, perhaps you know something they don't?

Your position has been to ignore or deny the influence nature has in the vocational choices that the different genders make. The red herring you are latching onto even makes a case for natural influence Double logic failure on your part.

Did you even peruse the link I dropped yesterday? That one is relevant to what we are discussing, here it is just in case you missed it http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf

I do not insist on anything. I am just going by your "logic" and it is fun.

You want me to check your links when you and TV01 have been avoiding and ignoring the studies I quoted because they contradicted your views?

Selective reading is in fashion now? Ok, let me go with the flow this time

TV01:

Your pain is your own - and I have no balm for you .

Mens brains are typically bigger than womens - will you on that basis agree that men are more intelligent.?
This study is on Americans, and some of the "races" therein. Further, as already pointed out by both AT and myself, they are worthless is not correctly factored.

And like I've repeated ad infinitum, if all told, racial advantages are found, let everyone have equal opportunity and equal access - and may the best man win.

Intelligence is not a primary criteria for women in selecting a mate. So black men will always be kings.

Way to answer a question with a question - are you by any chance Nigerian . Not just herring, but a whole net of oily fish !


TV

Read again TV:

"Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth. A study by Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differ- ences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size."


It really is not so difficult TV.

Mindfulness:


I do not insist on anything. I am just going by your "logic" and it is fun.

You want me to check your links when you and TV01 have been avoiding and ignoring the studies I quoted because they contradicted your views?

Selective reading is in fashion now? Ok, let me go with the flow this time

Oh really? You provided studies that denied all possible cases of biological influences on gender vocational choices?

And you are not insisting on anything abi?

Again it is obvious you don't even realise that your red herring argument makes a case for what you are arguing against - albeit in a totally unrelated topic. You have boxed yourself in without realising it.

C'mon, the lady-folk are counting on you to make a strong case - don't let them down.

Take sometime and parse your thoughts on the matter; Is the reason for a gender disparity in STEM completely cultural with no natural or biological basis?

Mindfulness:



Read again TV:

"Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth. A study by Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differ- ences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size."


It really is not so difficult TV.

Ok, I'll try, lets take it from the top;

This is the conclusion;
"Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth (and note the study was of Americans).

This what they did;
Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years

=> they inferred that head circumference was directly correlated to cranial capacity, brain size and hence IQ, no?

Without correctly factoring as we have previously pointed out, the only conclusion they could reasonably reach is that Asian brothers have large heads. QED

Even if we take it as read that all constraints/influencers were factored for, this would only apply to American "races" - and we all know the history there.

As I asked you previously, based on what you are relying on above, male brain size is demonstrably larger - not inferred and not unfactored - on that basis, are you willing to concede that men are naturally brainer/more intelligent/possess higher IQs than women, or are you going to present me with a tuna steak ?

Bear in mind, I am unperturbed by claims such as the experiment you posted make - correctly controlled for or otherwise. EqualOps, OpenAccess and let the chips fall where they may.

You still haven't answered my question about the physical superiority of men of African descent - all the white girls I know agree with a cross between a dreamy smile and a sly look !

Not having a high IQ, I may have missed your point, please enlighten me if I have .


TV

TV01:

Ok, I'll try, lets take it from the top;

This is the conclusion;
"Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth (and note the study was of Americans).

This what they did;
Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years

=> they inferred that head circumference was directly correlated to cranial capacity, brain size and hence IQ, no?

Without correctly factoring as we have previously pointed out, the only conclusion they could reasonably reach is that Asian brothers have large heads. QED

Even if we take it as read that all constraints/influencers were factored for, this would only apply to American "races" - and we all know the history there.

As I asked you previously, based on what you are relying on above, male brain size is demonstrably larger - not inferred and not unfactored - on that basis, are you willing to concede that men are naturally brainer/more intelligent/possess higher IQs than women, or are you going to present me with a tuna steak ?

Bear in mind, I am unperturbed by claims such as the experiment you posted make - correctly controlled for or otherwise. EqualOps, OpenAccess and let the chips fall where they may.

You still haven't answered my question about the physical superiority of men of African descent - all the white girls I know agree with a cross between a dreamy smile and a sly look !

Not having a high IQ, I may have missed your point, please enlighten me if I have .


TV

oga TV e beta make you go joke section or romance than to xpect a worthwhile answer from this kind of debate....Even you sef sabi how this type dey always end

TV01:

Ok, I'll try, lets take it from the top;

This is the conclusion;
"Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth (and note the study was of Americans).

This what they did;
Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years

=> they inferred that head circumference was directly correlated to cranial capacity, brain size and hence IQ, no?

Without correctly factoring as we have previously pointed out, the only conclusion they could reasonably reach is that Asian brothers have large heads. QED

No, this is not the conclusion they reached, this is what they measured.

Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children.

Even if we take it as read that all constraints/influencers were factored for, this would only apply to American "races" - and we all know the history there.

Unfortunately, there are many more studies that show the same. Asians score best at IQ tests and Blacks are at the other end of the spectrum.

"Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; that for Whites, about 100; and that for Blacks, about 85 in the United States and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa."

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

TV, nature or nurture?

As I asked you previously, based on what you are relying on above, male brain size is demonstrably larger - not inferred and not unfactored - on that basis, are you willing to concede that men are naturally brainer/more intelligent/possess higher IQs than women, or are you going to present me with a tuna steak ?
Bear in mind, I am unperturbed by claims such as the experiment you posted make - correctly controlled for or otherwise. EqualOps, OpenAccess and let the chips fall where they may.

I have already answered your question. The brain size differences are measured by taking into account the proportion to the rest of the body.

A short Chinese man who has a smaller brain than a tall African (American) man has a larger brain when the proportion to the rest of the body is taken into account.

You still haven't answered my question about the physical superiority of men of African descent - all the white girls I know agree with a cross between a dreamy smile and a sly look !

Not having a high IQ, I may have missed your point, please enlighten me if I have .


TV

Irrelevant.

ApexTitan:





Oh really? You provided studies that denied all possible cases of biological influences on gender vocational choices?

And you are not insisting on anything abi?

Again it is obvious you don't even realise that your red herring argument makes a case for what you are arguing against - albeit in a totally unrelated topic. You have boxed yourself in without realising it.

C'mon, the lady-folk are counting on you to make a strong case - don't let them down.

I have no obligations toward any group of people on or off NL when discussing such topics.

Take sometime and parse your thoughts on the matter; Is the reason for a gender disparity in STEM completely cultural with no natural or biological basis?

The answer to this question is NO!

Gender differences are ALWAYS the result of, BOTH, natural and environmental factors.


The human being is neither the mere "product" of his genes nor the mere "product" of his socialization.

Like you already said, there is a variety of factors that shapes a human being. How and to what extent these factors account for differences is what scientists have been arguing about for decades now and still have not found a clear, indisputable, answer.

Mindfulness:


I have no obligations toward any group of people on or off NL when discussing such topics.



The answer to this question is NO!

Gender differences are ALWAYS the result of, BOTH, natural and environmental factors.


The human being is neither the mere "product" of his genes nor the mere "product" of his socialization.

Like you already said, there is a variety of factors that shapes a human being. How and to what extent these factors account for differences is what scientists have been arguing about for decades now and still have not found a clear, indisputable, answer.

There we have it folks. Another display of faulty logic.


This inquiry is very specific, could there be a natural basis for the under-representation of women in STEM. It is one of those cases that requires a binary answer; yes or no.

You quickly deny the possibility of a biological basis but then indirectly admit to it later on (line in bold). It is either that nature has no influence whatsoever or it does. Now if nature does have an influence no amount of cultural modification will produce the same results as that of nature's. Meaning that in this case no amount of incentivization and repackaging will make women take to STEM the same way men do, the gender disparity will always remain. You would have done well for yourself by sticking to your guns completely - the obvious problem with this route is that you will be forever playing the ostrich and closing your eyes to the evidential truths that science is discovering in this regard.

"Gender differences are ALWAYS the result of, BOTH, natural and environmental factors"

Really? I would have left you and your faulty logic but I had to respond to this.

What influence did the environment/culture/nurture have that I was born male? What influence did the environment/culture/nurture have that I am broad chested and have narrow hips unlike that of a lady's See where I'm going with this?

author=ApexTitan post=39346465]


There we have it folks. Another display of faulty logic.


This inquiry is very specific, could there be a natural basis for the under-representation of women in STEM. It is one of those cases that requires a binary answer; yes or no.

Check the definition of the word binary before you speak about logic.

I have given you a very CLEAR answer to your question, read it up again.

You quickly deny the possibility of a biological basis but then indirectly admit to it later on (line in bold).

I have NEVER denied the possibility of a biological basis and I have NOT INDIRECTLY but DIRECTLY stated that genes play an important role. Read again, this time more carefully.

It is either that nature has no influence whatsoever or it does.

Have you ever met anyone in your life who said that nature has no influence? I have not.

Now if nature does have an influence no amount of cultural modification will produce the same results as that of nature's. Meaning that in this case no amount of incentivization and repackaging will make women take to STEM the same way men do, the gender disparity will always remain. You would have done well for yourself by sticking to your guns completely - the obvious problem with this route is that you will be forever playing the ostrich and closing your eyes to the evidential truths that science is discovering in this regard.

Who told you that cultural modifications aim at producing the same results nature does?

And are you saying that educational policies and different teaching methods and approaches have no influence over how well students perform?

"Gender differences are ALWAYS the result of, BOTH, natural and environmental factors"

Really? I would have left you and your faulty logic but I had to respond to this.

What influence did the environment/culture/nurture have that I was born male? What influence did the environment/culture/nurture have that I am broad chested and have narrow hips unlike that of a lady's See where I'm going with this?

I was speechless before I was able to answer the question, which I am still not sure, you are seriously asking. Even though the question could be answered by a primary school student, I will give you an answer nonetheless.

Even if environment had absolutely no influence over the gender of the baby (some studies show that a mother's diet and stress level has an impact on the conception of a boy or girl), the environment shapes gender-specific behaviors.

For you, as a Nigerian, it is perfectly normal that you as the man are the PRIMARY provider for the family (work outside the house) whereas a woman takes care of the babies and toddlers and domestic chores (works inside the house), at least until the kids grow a bit older but even then it is the man's MAIN responsibility to provide for the family, not the woman's.

This is, HOWEVER, not the case everywhere.

"The menfolk of the Aka people in Africa’s Congo Basin have been described as the ‘best dads in the world’ with the paternally minded pygmies playing with their babies at least five times as often as men from other societies. While women hunt, the men cook. Cots are unheard of (couples never leave babies lying unattended) and if one Aka parent smacks an infant, the other views it as grounds for divorce. Most staggering of all, Aka fathers offer their nipples as pacifiers to their babies when mum isn’t around."

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/05/where-women-rule-the-world-matriarchal-communities-from-albania-to-china-3525234/#ixzz3pagAaIuJ



This is how environment contributes to gender-specific norms and behaviors.


If you truly want to acquire a deeper understanding of the topic, you must not be lazy and accept that there is no single line of evidence. You must review multiple lines of evidence. Scientists have been trying to review these multiple lines of evidence and yet not been able to give simple answers like you people are trying to here. You are having beer parlor discussions here but you act like experts.