Then there is the history of Pedophiles targeting such schools, gaining employment there. Historicaly its been a fairly big problem, if only by precentages. Might not be such a problem now of course. Much easier background checks.
There's a history of pedophiles targeting all employment that involves children. Including priests, pastors, rabbis, big brother big sister programs etc etc. Not that I disagree with you. Well I do, I think government could do much better full time schooling but I think the same effect could be accomplished with pre kindergarten teaching.
No you've just clearly got an ideological axe to grind and a more reasoned response is going to fall on death ears coz you're already all set to be on the cross.
I do enjoy playing devil's advocate but I'm not above being proven wrong.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
I was hoping my other points would get more attention. v_v; it's like if you accidentally step on the toes of feminism, race, or religion nothing else you say matters.
No you've just clearly got an ideological axe to grind and a more reasoned response is going to fall on death ears coz you're already all set to be on the cross.
It does seem like he at least thinks he's right and is arguing in good faith, but I guess most ideologues are like that. It's too easy to fall into the trap of finding research to support your point, while ignoring any contradictory evidence. The fact that he hasn't addressed whatever contrary stuff he found during his research tells me he's doing bad science.
Most of the ideas he's referring too are not nearly as clear cut as they are being made out to be. More importantly, there's no mention of how they vary within the gender categories - and in the same research they come from this is usually a pretty big question since the sample sizes are generally small.
There's also issues of sociologically controlling the experiment - the conclusions drawn from broad observations of brain structure beg the question, because they see one thing and then assign it to a gender stereotype which is present throughout the community. It is telling that what is presented is website interpretations, not peer-reviewed science which would never draw such a far reaching conclusion - because it hasn't.
I was hoping my other points would get more attention. v_v; it's like if you accidentally step on the toes of feminism, race, or religion nothing else you say matters.
No you've just clearly got an ideological axe to grind and a more reasoned response is going to fall on death ears coz you're already all set to be on the cross.
It does seem like he at least thinks he's right and is arguing in good faith, but I guess most ideologues are like that. It's too easy to fall into the trap of finding research to support your point, while ignoring any contradictory evidence. The fact that he hasn't addressed whatever contrary stuff he found during his research tells me he's doing bad science.
That's annoying at least post some sort of evidence to the contrary.
The contradictory evidence is thus, regardless of the differences in the brain all that indicates is that it's easier for the brain to pick up stuff intrinsically tied to said things but all human brains are adaptable and both male and female brains are capable of creating an analogue to a different gender's brain output by rerouting wires. Further it's mostly a continuum (though there are definite genes that affect the brain on the x chromosome) between the difference of men and women from nearly no measurable difference to huge difference. The only real exception is that there's always an observable difference in gray and white matter.
Most of the ideas he's referring too are not nearly as clear cut as they are being made out to be. More importantly, there's no mention of how they vary within the gender categories - and in the same research they come from this is usually a pretty big question since the sample sizes are generally small.
It's true that they're not as clear cut as I make them seem. Define small sample size.
There's also issues of sociologically controlling the experiment - the conclusions drawn from broad observations of brain structure beg the question, because they see one thing and then assign it to a gender stereotype which is present throughout the community. It is telling that what is presented is website interpretations, not peer-reviewed science which would never draw such a far reaching conclusion - because it hasn't.
The conclusions drawn off of the structures are purely theoretical. We don't know that a larger corpus collosum produces better multitasking but women are consistently better at it in experiments. Further experiments taking various age groups involving puzzles (sort of like where's waldo) consistently show men are far better at finding a detail. The conclusions drawn are less conclusions but hypothesising why this is. It's basically taking what we know about the brain generating an idea based off of the structure and then attempting to test if that is true which tends often to be true.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
I was hoping my other points would get more attention. v_v; it's like if you accidentally step on the toes of feminism, race, or religion nothing else you say matters.
No you've just clearly got an ideological axe to grind and a more reasoned response is going to fall on death ears coz you're already all set to be on the cross.
It does seem like he at least thinks he's right and is arguing in good faith, but I guess most ideologues are like that. It's too easy to fall into the trap of finding research to support your point, while ignoring any contradictory evidence. The fact that he hasn't addressed whatever contrary stuff he found during his research tells me he's doing bad science.
That's annoying at least post some sort of evidence to the contrary.
The contradictory evidence is thus, regardless of the differences in the brain all that indicates is that it's easier for the brain to pick up stuff intrinsically tied to said things but all human brains are adaptable and both male and female brains are capable of creating an analogue to a different gender brain by rerouting wires. Further it's mostly a continuum (though there are definite genes that affect the brain on the x chromosome) between the difference of men and women from nearly no measurable difference to huge difference. The only real exception is that there's always an observable difference in gray and white matter.
So what you're saying is in fact, entirely irrelevant - at best - since what we need is an education system that addresses the differing learning needs of children? Masterful.
I was hoping my other points would get more attention. v_v; it's like if you accidentally step on the toes of feminism, race, or religion nothing else you say matters.
No you've just clearly got an ideological axe to grind and a more reasoned response is going to fall on death ears coz you're already all set to be on the cross.
It does seem like he at least thinks he's right and is arguing in good faith, but I guess most ideologues are like that. It's too easy to fall into the trap of finding research to support your point, while ignoring any contradictory evidence. The fact that he hasn't addressed whatever contrary stuff he found during his research tells me he's doing bad science.
That's annoying at least post some sort of evidence to the contrary.
The contradictory evidence is thus, regardless of the differences in the brain all that indicates is that it's easier for the brain to pick up stuff intrinsically tied to said things but all human brains are adaptable and both male and female brains are capable of creating an analogue to a different gender brain by rerouting wires. Further it's mostly a continuum (though there are definite genes that affect the brain on the x chromosome) between the difference of men and women from nearly no measurable difference to huge difference. The only real exception is that there's always an observable difference in gray and white matter.
So what you're saying is in fact, entirely irrelevant - at best - since what we need is an education system that addresses the differing learning needs of children? Masterful.
I'm lost. You're saying that because it's not black and white that we can't draw conclusions off of it? Masterful. I have been saying what we need is an education system that best addresses the differing learning needs of children all a long, my mistake making a note that there are large group differences between girls and boys, what I should've done was say children, that way the exceptions to the rule were included and I covered my ass? Fascinating.
Basically our argument as boiled down to which is better to group boys and girls differently or to group smaller subsets of children differently. Frankly I'd be happy with either one. I'd be much more happy with smaller group subsets than boys and girls even because the smaller the group the more accurate the psychological principals can be applied.
I.E this is all about me not being politically correct when I divided boys and girls and not whether there's actually differences psychologically between the two? Wow.
We examined the relationship between structural brain variation and general intelligence using voxel-based morphometric analysis of MRI data in men and women with equivalent IQ scores. Compared to men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence. In men IQ/gray matter correlations are strongest in frontal and parietal lobes (BA 8, 9, 39, 40), whereas the strongest correlations in women are in the frontal lobe (BA10) along with Broca’s area. Men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions, suggesting that there is no singular underlying neuroanatomical structure to general intelligence and that different types of brain designs may manifest equivalent intellectual performance.
We examined the relationship between structural brain variation and general intelligence using voxel-based morphometric analysis of MRI data in men and women with equivalent IQ scores. Compared to men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence. In men IQ/gray matter correlations are strongest in frontal and parietal lobes (BA 8, 9, 39, 40), whereas the strongest correlations in women are in the frontal lobe (BA10) along with Broca’s area. Men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions, suggesting that there is no singular underlying neuroanatomical structure to general intelligence and that different types of brain designs may manifest equivalent intellectual performance.
I never said there was an IQ difference dunce. IQ is a measurement of how well we think not our ability to learn. I also never said that women were less intelligent than men or less capable then men or that men were less intelligent or less capable than women stop putting words in my mouth.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
The relationship between brain volume and intelligence has been a topic of a scientific debate since at least the 1830s. To address the debate, a meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence was conducted. Based on 37 samples across 1530 people, the population correlation was estimated at 0.33. The correlation is higher for females than males. It is also higher for adults than children. For all age and sex groups, it is clear that brain volume is positively correlated with intelligence.
Again, saying nothing really about the sexes. Also single author papers are pretty alarming especially with a claim like that one, but I haven't run the citation DB on it yet.
The third one is an imaging abstract, but one would also note draws no conclusions about the effect on learning from these differences. And in fact none of what you presented does.
We examined the relationship between structural brain variation and general intelligence using voxel-based morphometric analysis of MRI data in men and women with equivalent IQ scores. Compared to men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence. In men IQ/gray matter correlations are strongest in frontal and parietal lobes (BA 8, 9, 39, 40), whereas the strongest correlations in women are in the frontal lobe (BA10) along with Broca’s area. Men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions, suggesting that there is no singular underlying neuroanatomical structure to general intelligence and that different types of brain designs may manifest equivalent intellectual performance.
I never said there was an IQ difference dunce. IQ is a measurement of how well we think not our ability to learn. I also never said that women were less intelligent than men or less capable then men or that men were less intelligent or less capable than women stop putting words in my mouth.
Which you will note, has nothing to do with this publication whatsoever. They find the same IQ, between men and women, using different regions - implying there isn't even a difference in problem solving abilities - they show no sex-preferred advantages.
So again, will you post something that's relevant?
We examined the relationship between structural brain variation and general intelligence using voxel-based morphometric analysis of MRI data in men and women with equivalent IQ scores. Compared to men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence. In men IQ/gray matter correlations are strongest in frontal and parietal lobes (BA 8, 9, 39, 40), whereas the strongest correlations in women are in the frontal lobe (BA10) along with Broca’s area. Men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions, suggesting that there is no singular underlying neuroanatomical structure to general intelligence and that different types of brain designs may manifest equivalent intellectual performance.
I never said there was an IQ difference dunce. IQ is a measurement of how well we think not our ability to learn. I also never said that women were less intelligent than men or less capable then men or that men were less intelligent or less capable than women stop putting words in my mouth.
Which you will note, has nothing to do with this publication whatsoever. They find the same IQ, between men and women, using different regions - implying there isn't even a difference in problem solving abilities - they show no sex-preferred advantages.
So again, will you post something that's relevant?
Here's some information supporting my actual premise.
Illustrates differences in psychiatric drug care between men and women.
I'm at a significant disadvantage without the usage of my passwords to enter most of the websites like I said I can't make a very good argument until monday .
edit: here's some references but I can't get the actual articles until monday
Gur RC, Turetsky BI, Matsui M, Yan M, Bilker W, Hughett P, Gur RE: Sex differences in brain gray and white matter in healthy young adults: correlations with cognitive performance. J Neurosci 1999; 19:4065–4072
Gur RC, Harper Mozley L, Mozley PD, Resnick SM, Karp JS, Alavi A, Arnold SE, Gur RE: Sex differences in regional cerebral glucose metabolism during a resting state. Science 1995; 267:528–531
Shaywitz BA, Shaywitz SE, Pugh KR, Constable RT, Skudlarski P, Fulbright RK, Bronen RA, Fletcher JM, Shankweiler DP, Katz L, Gores JC: Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language. Nature 1995; 373:607–609
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
Results: Women and younger participants had higher dopamine availability in the caudate nucleus, and these groups also performed better on verbal learning tasks. Furthermore, dopamine transporter availability was correlated with learning performance within groups. Relationships between dopamine availability in the caudate and putamen and executive and motor functioning were observed in women, but not in men.
Congratulations. You're simply trolling my argument aren't you?
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
Results: Women and younger participants had higher dopamine availability in the caudate nucleus, and these groups also performed better on verbal learning tasks. Furthermore, dopamine transporter availability was correlated with learning performance within groups. Relationships between dopamine availability in the caudate and putamen and executive and motor functioning were observed in women, but not in men.
Congratulations. You're simply trolling my argument aren't you?
Results: Women and younger participants had higher dopamine availability in the caudate nucleus, and these groups also performed better on verbal learning tasks. Furthermore, dopamine transporter availability was correlated with learning performance within groups. Relationships between dopamine availability in the caudate and putamen and executive and motor functioning were observed in women, but not in men.
Congratulations. You're simply trolling my argument aren't you?
Whoops.
Read the damn article. We're attempting to prove that there's differences in the ways men's and women's brains work.
Which you will note, has nothing to do with this publication whatsoever. They find the same IQ, between men and women, using different regions - implying there isn't even a difference in problem solving abilities - they show no sex-preferred advantages.
Problem solving ability != learning ability good job though.
Here's two more articles you can feel free to look up as well.
Kimura D : Sex, sexual orientation and sex hormones influence human cognitive function. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1996; 6:259–263
Van Goozen SH, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren LJ, Frijda NH, Van de Poll NE: Gender differences in behaviour: activating effects of cross-sex hormones. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1995; 20:343–363
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
Results: Women and younger participants had higher dopamine availability in the caudate nucleus, and these groups also performed better on verbal learning tasks. Furthermore, dopamine transporter availability was correlated with learning performance within groups. Relationships between dopamine availability in the caudate and putamen and executive and motor functioning were observed in women, but not in men.
Congratulations. You're simply trolling my argument aren't you?
Whoops.
Read the damn article.
Here's two more articles you can feel free to look up as well.
Kimura Sex, sexual orientation and sex hormones influence human cognitive function. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1996; 6:259–263
Van Goozen SH, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren LJ, Frijda NH, Van de Poll NE: Gender differences in behaviour: activating effects of cross-sex hormones. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1995; 20:343–363
Differences in biological learning differences does not automatically equal differences in teaching style requirements.
You do realize that even supposing you're right, and frankly I don't think you can prove you are in any significant way, you've already acknowledged its a continuum within the genders and between them.
(EDIT: blah blah I should read the papers - I've done this before, and I know what gets posted is going to be the one side of whatever you feel supports your argument. We're unlikely to see meta-studies. It hasn't even occurred to you to go looking for say, statistical surveys of school performance and check whether your idea is borne out [pro-tip: it's not] and of course then you'd have to show that there's an actual correlation between the sex-linked learning traits you're arguing for and the curriculum content you're arguing against).
So what would be the practical offshoot of your gender aware policy? Are you sure it wouldn't be nothing? Since a system designed with the idea that people learn in different ways would intrinsically cover all these outcomes in the first place?
Going right to 'the difference within groups is still bigger than the difference between groups', 'we don't have to be prisoners of what nature has given us', and 'please explain why the same differences in student outcomes are occurring in countries that have no truck with alleged floofy modern educational techniques'.
Seriously, elf, there's no freaking way you actually read the linked articles or their sources, and there's no way what you're talking about has anywhere near the real-world outcomes you claim. People have different brains, but they're also stupendously adaptable. You sell us all short when you post like this.
Results: Women and younger participants had higher dopamine availability in the caudate nucleus, and these groups also performed better on verbal learning tasks. Furthermore, dopamine transporter availability was correlated with learning performance within groups. Relationships between dopamine availability in the caudate and putamen and executive and motor functioning were observed in women, but not in men.
Congratulations. You're simply trolling my argument aren't you?
Whoops.
Read the damn article.
Here's two more articles you can feel free to look up as well.
Kimura Sex, sexual orientation and sex hormones influence human cognitive function. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1996; 6:259–263
Van Goozen SH, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren LJ, Frijda NH, Van de Poll NE: Gender differences in behaviour: activating effects of cross-sex hormones. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1995; 20:343–363
Differences in biological learning differences does not automatically equal differences in teaching style requirements.
I'm putting too much effort into this argument v_v
Finally something that parallels what I'm talking about. Chaotic teaching methods favor boys because boys tend to have many different methods that they prefer whereas girls tend to choose the same method.
You do realize that even supposing you're right, and frankly I don't think you can prove you are in any significant way, you've already acknowledged its a continuum within the genders and between them.
(EDIT: blah blah I should read the papers - I've done this before, and I know what gets posted is going to be the one side of whatever you feel supports your argument. We're unlikely to see meta-studies. It hasn't even occurred to you to go looking for say, statistical surveys of school performance and check whether your idea is borne out [pro-tip: it's not] and of course then you'd have to show that there's an actual correlation between the sex-linked learning traits you're arguing for and the curriculum content you're arguing against).
So what would be the practical offshoot of your gender aware policy? Are you sure it wouldn't be nothing? Since a system designed with the idea that people learn in different ways would intrinsically cover all these outcomes in the first place?
The last articles he posted seem to support this hypothesis. See the search terms?
edit: Abstracts are our friend.
OBJECTIVE: There is growing interest in distinguishing the biological bases of sex differences in behavior from environmental influences. Sex hormone levels seem to be related to some cognitive abilities, particularly memory, and the dopaminergic system participates in the mediation of memory. The dopamine transporter is the primary indicator of dopaminergic tone. This study investigated the relationship between cognition and dopamine transporter availability in healthy men and women. METHOD: Dopamine transporter levels were measured with a technetium-99m radiolabeled analog of cocaine, TRODAT-1, in 66 healthy volunteers (30 men and 36 women). A neuropsychological battery designed to target functions associated with dopaminergic activity was administered during the uptake interval between the radiopharmaceutical injection and image acquisition. RESULTS: Women and younger participants had higher dopamine availability in the caudate nucleus, and these groups also performed better on verbal learning tasks. Furthermore, dopamine transporter availability was correlated with learning performance within groups. Relationships between dopamine availability in the caudate and putamen and executive and motor functioning were observed in women, but not in men. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide further evidence for age effects and sex differences in the neuromodulatory influences of dopamine on behavior in humans.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to offer recommendations and rationale for gender-specific antipsychotic treatment. METHOD: The author summarizes reviews of recent literature in psychiatric clinical trials, pharmacology, drug safety, toxicology, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antipsychotic drugs differ in women and men and are influenced by gender-specific factors such as body build, diet, smoking, concurrent medication, exercise, substance use, and hormonal transitions. In general, and for some drugs in particular, women require lower doses in order to stay well. Because preliminary drug testing is not done in pregnant women, the issue of effective dosing during pregnancy is unstudied, and safety for fetuses and nursing infants may not become evident until a drug is widely used. Specific adverse effects on issues crucial to women (e.g., parenting) have not been well studied, but some side effects, such as weight gain, passivity, hypotension, and hyperprolactinemia, are reported to be particularly problematic for women. Some serious side effects are more often seen among women than among men. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal maintenance regimens of antipsychotics for women and men are not the same.
The articles have nothing to do with what he was searching for.
You do realize that even supposing you're right, and frankly I don't think you can prove you are in any significant way, you've already acknowledged its a continuum within the genders and between them.
(EDIT: blah blah I should read the papers - I've done this before, and I know what gets posted is going to be the one side of whatever you feel supports your argument. We're unlikely to see meta-studies. It hasn't even occurred to you to go looking for say, statistical surveys of school performance and check whether your idea is borne out [pro-tip: it's not] and of course then you'd have to show that there's an actual correlation between the sex-linked learning traits you're arguing for and the curriculum content you're arguing against).
So what would be the practical offshoot of your gender aware policy? Are you sure it wouldn't be nothing? Since a system designed with the idea that people learn in different ways would intrinsically cover all these outcomes in the first place?
You're correct I suppose. I'll concede the argument until/unless I find something to the contrary.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
Yeah I did see the search terms, to be fair I'd try and discredit by going in the opposite direction. The point is it's starting with the wrong question.
As for the current 4: there are good reasons to question whether surveys of learning preferences are relevant to whether teaching strategies are effective or not. Do they correlate against actual outcomes or is what we see simply, preference. It's probably a middle ground but that again comes back to, do we just need to try and identify preferences and streamline classes, or shift the balance of teaching strategies employed? The articles posted conclude that.
Finally something that parallels what I'm talking about. Chaotic teaching methods favor boys because boys tend to have many different methods that they prefer whereas girls tend to choose the same method.
No, no, noooooo. There's no appended data on educational outcomes, thus you can't draw a bow between preferences and results. There's also no data on what modes are used most in the classes these students are taking, so you definitely can't tell if the curriculum structure is addressing their personal needs. You're telling a story that's not in evidence.
Also, very small, specialised and self-selecting dataset. Interesting, but not well-suited to generalisation.
Good observational record, but no attempt to investigate where these models of social networks come from, and whether they're intractably inbred or simply cultural artefacts. There's a lot of research demonstrating substantial narrowing of the 'gaps' between genders in a number of key metrics (not just learning outcomes, but bigger stuff like type and degree of criminality) over the last few decades, and a huge amount of stuff showing that minimal training can almost eliminate many of the simpler-to-demonstrate gaps in cognitive task competence (tetris and 3D rotation, for instance). Will this stuff even be relevant in a few years, or relevant outside its cultural context? Who knows.
Not that I can read the whole thing, but even on the first page the authors hesitate to draw the links between learning style preference and outcome that you so cheerfully insist upon.
I get that you really want it to be true that boys are being screwed over by modern education, but your links aren't backing up your claim, and mine and other's links go a long way to undermining them.
I get that you really want it to be true that boys are being screwed over by modern education, but your links aren't backing up your claim, and mine and other's links go a long way to undermining them.
Where are you getting this idea from? At most I'm guilty of repeating hearsay that was taught to me incorrect. In psychology class our teacher was deadset on the differences between the genders and behavior. It seemed like every day he had a new article on the subject. I'll have to get in contact with him and find the text book he used to confirm it.
I try my damndest to not let my emotional opinions flavor my rationale opinions.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
I get that you really want it to be true that boys are being screwed over by modern education, but your links aren't backing up your claim, and mine and other's links go a long way to undermining them.
Where are you getting this idea from? At most I'm guilty of repeating hearsay that was taught to me incorrect. In psychology class our teacher was deadset on the differences between the genders and behavior. It seemed like every day he had a new article on the subject. I'll have to get in contact with him and find the text book he used to confirm it.
I try my damndest to not let my emotional opinions flavor my rationale opinions.
Step back and ask yourself this: Are you seeking evidence to support a point, or are you looking at evidence to form a point?
This is what you need to ask yourself in any research. The former is really bad and has produced a lot of bad information over the centuries that haunts us to this day, and the latter is the beginning of productive, useful research.
I get that you really want it to be true that boys are being screwed over by modern education, but your links aren't backing up your claim, and mine and other's links go a long way to undermining them.
Where are you getting this idea from? At most I'm guilty of repeating hearsay that was taught to me incorrect. In psychology class our teacher was deadset on the differences between the genders and behavior. It seemed like every day he had a new article on the subject. I'll have to get in contact with him and find the text book he used to confirm it.
I try my damndest to not let my emotional opinions flavor my rationale opinions.
Step back and ask yourself this: Are you seeking evidence to support a point, or are you looking at evidence to form a point?
This is what you need to ask yourself in any research. The former is really bad and has produced a lot of bad information over the centuries that haunts us to this day, and the latter is the beginning of productive, useful research.
While I've seen good evidence that men and women are doing well in school and there is no male 'crisis'. I've yet to see information arguing against (or really for) there being cognitive dissimilarities between men and women. From what I know about psychology and biology my opinion screams that there are, if near symmetry in ears can be a major tell on something as complicated as athletic performance differences then the definite structural and pathway differenced between the brains of men and woman should logically have an effect on behavior including learning. If someone presents me evidence that actually refutes that claim I'll concede the argument completely.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
I get that you really want it to be true that boys are being screwed over by modern education, but your links aren't backing up your claim, and mine and other's links go a long way to undermining them.
Where are you getting this idea from? At most I'm guilty of repeating hearsay that was taught to me incorrect. In psychology class our teacher was deadset on the differences between the genders and behavior. It seemed like every day he had a new article on the subject. I'll have to get in contact with him and find the text book he used to confirm it.
I try my damndest to not let my emotional opinions flavor my rationale opinions.
I'll go with that first supposition. I think your prof is banging a hell of a drum; most researchers in this field are far more hesistant to draw big conclusions from small bits of research, much less use them as a basis for policy implementation. Like I said in PM, lets talk about your proposed solutions to these issues, even assuming they're as important as you claim.
I get that you really want it to be true that boys are being screwed over by modern education, but your links aren't backing up your claim, and mine and other's links go a long way to undermining them.
Where are you getting this idea from? At most I'm guilty of repeating hearsay that was taught to me incorrect. In psychology class our teacher was deadset on the differences between the genders and behavior. It seemed like every day he had a new article on the subject. I'll have to get in contact with him and find the text book he used to confirm it.
I try my damndest to not let my emotional opinions flavor my rationale opinions.
Step back and ask yourself this: Are you seeking evidence to support a point, or are you looking at evidence to form a point?
This is what you need to ask yourself in any research. The former is really bad and has produced a lot of bad information over the centuries that haunts us to this day, and the latter is the beginning of productive, useful research.
While I've seen good evidence that men and women are doing well in school and there is no male 'crisis'. I've yet to see information arguing against (or really for) there being cognitive dissimilarities between men and women. From what I know about psychology and biology my opinion screams that there are, if near symmetry in ears can be a major tell on something as complicated as athletic performance differences then the definite structural and pathway differenced between the brains of men and woman should logically have an effect on behavior including learning. If someone presents me evidence that actually refutes that claim I'll concede the argument completely.
I get that you really want it to be true that boys are being screwed over by modern education, but your links aren't backing up your claim, and mine and other's links go a long way to undermining them.
Where are you getting this idea from? At most I'm guilty of repeating hearsay that was taught to me incorrect. In psychology class our teacher was deadset on the differences between the genders and behavior. It seemed like every day he had a new article on the subject. I'll have to get in contact with him and find the text book he used to confirm it.
I try my damndest to not let my emotional opinions flavor my rationale opinions.
Step back and ask yourself this: Are you seeking evidence to support a point, or are you looking at evidence to form a point?
This is what you need to ask yourself in any research. The former is really bad and has produced a lot of bad information over the centuries that haunts us to this day, and the latter is the beginning of productive, useful research.
While I've seen good evidence that men and women are doing well in school and there is no male 'crisis'. I've yet to see information arguing against (or really for) there being cognitive dissimilarities between men and women. From what I know about psychology and biology my opinion screams that there are, if near symmetry in ears can be a major tell on something as complicated as athletic performance differences then the definite structural and pathway differenced between the brains of men and woman should logically have an effect on behavior including learning. If someone presents me evidence that actually refutes that claim I'll concede the argument completely.
Down this path lies the dark side.
I'm pretty sure that's how most experiments are started. Seeing the lack of scientific evidence either way makes me want to do my own study. Researchers start with a supposition then test, retest and depending on the results generate their conclusion. I generate my conclusion off of a huge amount of psychology I've taken but I also realize that it's entirely possible my teacher was doing one of the things (purposely teaching wrongly or teaching their opinion as fact) I made a point about earlier.
Cat, my arguments are organized thusly, weakest points first and usually the strongest points are at the end. I think the best way to increase our education standards is to start teaching children when they're far younger. Teaching them when they are most receptive to learning rather than after it. Most scientific evidence points to the idea that working your child's mind with anything that causes it to activate i.e colors, shapes, music, basic problems etc (note your child has to be actively involved in said activity) can have profound effects on your child's ability to succeed, something that doesn't happen in underprivileged homes.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
The problem was "if someone presents me evidence that actually refutes that claim I'll concede the argument completely." The things you've cited do not support your arguments. You're starting with a conclusion and telling us to disprove it.
That solution I can roll with. Especially since it rather neatly addresses the race and class divides evident in educational performance. That solution doesn't really attempt to address anything explicitly gender-based, though, so I'm wondering why all the hoopla?
That solution I can roll with. Especially since it rather neatly addresses the race and class divides evident in educational performance. That solution doesn't really attempt to address anything explicitly gender-based, though, so I'm wondering why all the hoopla?
Its also worth pointing out that men still tend to do very well with their lives, despite those evil female teachers suppressing their natural urges, or whatever the fuck the current line is.
Lastly, the implication that there's something terribly wrong with a system because females do well in it is problematic. Don't even get me started on the 'conspiracy against the poor menz' paranoia.
Interpretted as terming me as a male pig. Which I ignored because I didn't care. Then:
Lastly, the implication that there's something terribly wrong with a system because females do well in it is problematic. Don't even get me started on the 'conspiracy against the poor menz' paranoia.
Nice paraphrasing there. He did not once say that the system is problematic because girls do well - he said it is problematic because girls are consistently performing significantly better than boys. You know, just like how it was problematic a few decades ago when the sides were reversed.
Its not really paraphrasing. The resentful tone really bothers me, as do the priorities. Really, this is the biggest problem with modern education? Not that boys are failing (they're not, by a long shot), but that they're getting edged out on marks? That they're not going to uni so much? They're still outearning women consistently, and still highly (overwhelmingly) represented in all the major fields. Its a pretty good time in history to be a bloke; the suicide rate is down (finally), you have less responsibilities than anyone, like ever, and the expectation that you spend your life as a walking wallet or cannon fodder is fading fast. The only thing holdng you back is regressive gender stereotypes.
Also, its not nearly so clear-cut as 'boys are failing'. As I just said above, they're not (there are problematic subgroups, however, notably poor, black, and hispanic boys), and the 'huge number of peer reviewed articles' that elfdude mentions don't agree with his simple assertion either. Which is why, I presume, there are no links to so much as a digest of results. Here's some links for you:
<snip>
Terming me as a male pig then adding to it like I was resentful (though I guess you never specified me in this post) or a pouting little kid.
My next post is an attempt at diffusing the situation saying I bought into the possibility (I was clear to underpin that the second time since I realized I hadn't the first).
Was followed by me interpretting your post as you saying I was being a resentful male pig and basing my logic off of blind faith, and then you undermined my credibility by telling me my arguments were nonsensical and full of fallacy.
Which I followed with a post where I figured your problem with accepting my argument had something to do with a preconception that I was a male pig so I tried to outline the principals that my theory was founded on (i.e men and women's brains are different) since I figured you were simply attempting to deny that because my similar impression of you was a bra burning feminist who was convinced that one day a penis would = a vagina.
Which followed by electricitylikesme laughing at my post which I took as encouragement but I really didn't care so I attempted to end the argument again.
Then he posted that I was basically undeserving of argument.
Which I took great offense to.
And it spiraled out of control. It substends from you taking my argument as something it wasn't and me then taking your counter argument as something it wasn't.... I think.
The problem was "if someone presents me evidence that actually refutes that claim I'll concede the argument completely." The things you've cited do not support your arguments. You're starting with a conclusion and telling us to disprove it.
Yes but when someone starts with the conclusion of 2+2=4 you don't tell them to prove it. I'm starting with a conclusion based off of my experience in the classroom and telling you to disprove it would be more accurate summary, but still there's zero data I can find that backs up either direction. Cat's sources make good arguments against male paranoia but they don't address anything scientific which is the foundation of my argument. While I'm admitting that there's no way to know either way until I either find a real source that says one way or another. I didn't mean to start with the supposition that my position was absolute fact, I thought it was backed by psychology (why scientists don't publish their work where it can be freely viewed I don't know) which I recognize as being the most esoteric field in science and probably the most likely to be viewed as total bullshit 50 years from now.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
I'm pretty sure that if Cat were calling you a "male pig," she wouldn't do it subtly.
Her manner and tone are not substantially different from anyone else participating in this discussion. Except yours, I guess. None of us have tossed insults around as far as I can recall.
I'm pretty sure that's how most experiments are started. Seeing the lack of scientific evidence either way makes me want to do my own study. Researchers start with a supposition then test, retest and depending on the results generate their conclusion. I generate my conclusion off of a huge amount of psychology I've taken but I also realize that it's entirely possible my teacher was doing one of the things (purposely teaching wrongly or teaching their opinion as fact) I made a point about earlier.
Cat, my arguments are organized thusly, weakest points first and usually the strongest points are at the end. I think the best way to increase our education standards is to start teaching children when they're far younger. Teaching them when they are most receptive to learning rather than after it. Most scientific evidence points to the idea that working your child's mind with anything that causes it to activate i.e colors, shapes, music, basic problems etc (note your child has to be actively involved in said activity) can have profound effects on your child's ability to succeed, something that doesn't happen in underprivileged homes.
There's not a lack of scientific evidence either way. It's just boring. Wicked boring.
Say it with me: Individual variation within the two groups greatly outpaces the observed variation between the groups.
You know what's a fun one though? The observed differences in spatial relations ability between men and women can be eliminated by 6-8 hours playing Call of Duty. And it lasts! Turns out videogames serve some purpose.
Edit Again: Oh, we covered that already? Eh. The number of times I see "but but but... they must be different! It's so obvious!" has caused me to skim over a lot of this.
If you're looking for why girls do better in school, start at the top, and you'll probably get the answer before you hit neurotransmitters.
Posts
There's a history of pedophiles targeting all employment that involves children. Including priests, pastors, rabbis, big brother big sister programs etc etc. Not that I disagree with you. Well I do, I think government could do much better full time schooling but I think the same effect could be accomplished with pre kindergarten teaching.
I do enjoy playing devil's advocate but I'm not above being proven wrong.
It does seem like he at least thinks he's right and is arguing in good faith, but I guess most ideologues are like that. It's too easy to fall into the trap of finding research to support your point, while ignoring any contradictory evidence. The fact that he hasn't addressed whatever contrary stuff he found during his research tells me he's doing bad science.
There's also issues of sociologically controlling the experiment - the conclusions drawn from broad observations of brain structure beg the question, because they see one thing and then assign it to a gender stereotype which is present throughout the community. It is telling that what is presented is website interpretations, not peer-reviewed science which would never draw such a far reaching conclusion - because it hasn't.
That's annoying at least post some sort of evidence to the contrary.
The contradictory evidence is thus, regardless of the differences in the brain all that indicates is that it's easier for the brain to pick up stuff intrinsically tied to said things but all human brains are adaptable and both male and female brains are capable of creating an analogue to a different gender's brain output by rerouting wires. Further it's mostly a continuum (though there are definite genes that affect the brain on the x chromosome) between the difference of men and women from nearly no measurable difference to huge difference. The only real exception is that there's always an observable difference in gray and white matter.
It's true that they're not as clear cut as I make them seem. Define small sample size.
The conclusions drawn off of the structures are purely theoretical. We don't know that a larger corpus collosum produces better multitasking but women are consistently better at it in experiments. Further experiments taking various age groups involving puzzles (sort of like where's waldo) consistently show men are far better at finding a detail. The conclusions drawn are less conclusions but hypothesising why this is. It's basically taking what we know about the brain generating an idea based off of the structure and then attempting to test if that is true which tends often to be true.
So what you're saying is in fact, entirely irrelevant - at best - since what we need is an education system that addresses the differing learning needs of children? Masterful.
I'm lost. You're saying that because it's not black and white that we can't draw conclusions off of it? Masterful. I have been saying what we need is an education system that best addresses the differing learning needs of children all a long, my mistake making a note that there are large group differences between girls and boys, what I should've done was say children, that way the exceptions to the rule were included and I covered my ass? Fascinating.
Basically our argument as boiled down to which is better to group boys and girls differently or to group smaller subsets of children differently. Frankly I'd be happy with either one. I'd be much more happy with smaller group subsets than boys and girls even because the smaller the group the more accurate the psychological principals can be applied.
I.E this is all about me not being politically correct when I divided boys and girls and not whether there's actually differences psychologically between the two? Wow.
P.S cited sources.
http://uit.no/getfile.php?PageId=1935&FileId=467 PEER REVIEWED
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Big-Brained%20article.pdf PEER REVIEWED
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/156/3/352 PEER REVIEWED
I never said there was an IQ difference dunce. IQ is a measurement of how well we think not our ability to learn. I also never said that women were less intelligent than men or less capable then men or that men were less intelligent or less capable than women stop putting words in my mouth.
Again, saying nothing really about the sexes. Also single author papers are pretty alarming especially with a claim like that one, but I haven't run the citation DB on it yet.
The third one is an imaging abstract, but one would also note draws no conclusions about the effect on learning from these differences. And in fact none of what you presented does.
So again, will you post something that's relevant?
Debate != attack.
Are you a bad enough dude to defend your point without insults ("dunce")?
Here's some information supporting my actual premise.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/158/9/1492?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&titleabstract=learning+differences+between+men+and+women&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
This actually implies differences in memory and cognitive ability.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/161/8/1324?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=learning+differences+between+men+and+women&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
Illustrates differences in psychiatric drug care between men and women.
I'm at a significant disadvantage without the usage of my passwords to enter most of the websites like I said I can't make a very good argument until monday
edit: here's some references but I can't get the actual articles until monday
Gur RC, Turetsky BI, Matsui M, Yan M, Bilker W, Hughett P, Gur RE: Sex differences in brain gray and white matter in healthy young adults: correlations with cognitive performance. J Neurosci 1999; 19:4065–4072
Gur RC, Harper Mozley L, Mozley PD, Resnick SM, Karp JS, Alavi A, Arnold SE, Gur RE: Sex differences in regional cerebral glucose metabolism during a resting state. Science 1995; 267:528–531
Shaywitz BA, Shaywitz SE, Pugh KR, Constable RT, Skudlarski P, Fulbright RK, Bronen RA, Fletcher JM, Shankweiler DP, Katz L, Gores JC: Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language. Nature 1995; 373:607–609
Congratulations. You're simply trolling my argument aren't you?
Read the damn article. We're attempting to prove that there's differences in the ways men's and women's brains work.
Also
Problem solving ability != learning ability good job though.
Here's two more articles you can feel free to look up as well.
Kimura D : Sex, sexual orientation and sex hormones influence human cognitive function. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1996; 6:259–263
Van Goozen SH, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren LJ, Frijda NH, Van de Poll NE: Gender differences in behaviour: activating effects of cross-sex hormones. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1995; 20:343–363
Differences in biological learning differences does not automatically equal differences in teaching style requirements.
(EDIT: blah blah I should read the papers - I've done this before, and I know what gets posted is going to be the one side of whatever you feel supports your argument. We're unlikely to see meta-studies. It hasn't even occurred to you to go looking for say, statistical surveys of school performance and check whether your idea is borne out [pro-tip: it's not] and of course then you'd have to show that there's an actual correlation between the sex-linked learning traits you're arguing for and the curriculum content you're arguing against).
So what would be the practical offshoot of your gender aware policy? Are you sure it wouldn't be nothing? Since a system designed with the idea that people learn in different ways would intrinsically cover all these outcomes in the first place?
Seriously, elf, there's no freaking way you actually read the linked articles or their sources, and there's no way what you're talking about has anywhere near the real-world outcomes you claim. People have different brains, but they're also stupendously adaptable. You sell us all short when you post like this.
I'm putting too much effort into this argument v_v
http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/153
Finally something that parallels what I'm talking about. Chaotic teaching methods favor boys because boys tend to have many different methods that they prefer whereas girls tend to choose the same method.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n775k2j33230w414/
http://www.jstor.org/pss/327503
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t767520114151480/
I'm going to bed but I'll attempt to get more concrete stuff tomorrow.
Also I know it's not exactly science worthy but both BBC and national geographic have documentaries based off of this I'm sure it'd be easy to find.
The last articles he posted seem to support this hypothesis. See the search terms?
edit: Abstracts are our friend.
The articles have nothing to do with what he was searching for.
You're correct I suppose. I'll concede the argument until/unless I find something to the contrary.
As for the current 4: there are good reasons to question whether surveys of learning preferences are relevant to whether teaching strategies are effective or not. Do they correlate against actual outcomes or is what we see simply, preference. It's probably a middle ground but that again comes back to, do we just need to try and identify preferences and streamline classes, or shift the balance of teaching strategies employed? The articles posted conclude that.
No, no, noooooo. There's no appended data on educational outcomes, thus you can't draw a bow between preferences and results. There's also no data on what modes are used most in the classes these students are taking, so you definitely can't tell if the curriculum structure is addressing their personal needs. You're telling a story that's not in evidence.
Also, very small, specialised and self-selecting dataset. Interesting, but not well-suited to generalisation.
Again, preferences but no outcomes. Good observational record, but no attempt to investigate where these models of social networks come from, and whether they're intractably inbred or simply cultural artefacts. There's a lot of research demonstrating substantial narrowing of the 'gaps' between genders in a number of key metrics (not just learning outcomes, but bigger stuff like type and degree of criminality) over the last few decades, and a huge amount of stuff showing that minimal training can almost eliminate many of the simpler-to-demonstrate gaps in cognitive task competence (tetris and 3D rotation, for instance). Will this stuff even be relevant in a few years, or relevant outside its cultural context? Who knows. Not that I can read the whole thing, but even on the first page the authors hesitate to draw the links between learning style preference and outcome that you so cheerfully insist upon.
I get that you really want it to be true that boys are being screwed over by modern education, but your links aren't backing up your claim, and mine and other's links go a long way to undermining them.
Where are you getting this idea from? At most I'm guilty of repeating hearsay that was taught to me incorrect. In psychology class our teacher was deadset on the differences between the genders and behavior. It seemed like every day he had a new article on the subject. I'll have to get in contact with him and find the text book he used to confirm it.
I try my damndest to not let my emotional opinions flavor my rationale opinions.
Step back and ask yourself this: Are you seeking evidence to support a point, or are you looking at evidence to form a point?
This is what you need to ask yourself in any research. The former is really bad and has produced a lot of bad information over the centuries that haunts us to this day, and the latter is the beginning of productive, useful research.
While I've seen good evidence that men and women are doing well in school and there is no male 'crisis'. I've yet to see information arguing against (or really for) there being cognitive dissimilarities between men and women. From what I know about psychology and biology my opinion screams that there are, if near symmetry in ears can be a major tell on something as complicated as athletic performance differences then the definite structural and pathway differenced between the brains of men and woman should logically have an effect on behavior including learning. If someone presents me evidence that actually refutes that claim I'll concede the argument completely.
Down this path lies the dark side.
I'm pretty sure that's how most experiments are started. Seeing the lack of scientific evidence either way makes me want to do my own study. Researchers start with a supposition then test, retest and depending on the results generate their conclusion. I generate my conclusion off of a huge amount of psychology I've taken but I also realize that it's entirely possible my teacher was doing one of the things (purposely teaching wrongly or teaching their opinion as fact) I made a point about earlier.
Cat, my arguments are organized thusly, weakest points first and usually the strongest points are at the end. I think the best way to increase our education standards is to start teaching children when they're far younger. Teaching them when they are most receptive to learning rather than after it. Most scientific evidence points to the idea that working your child's mind with anything that causes it to activate i.e colors, shapes, music, basic problems etc (note your child has to be actively involved in said activity) can have profound effects on your child's ability to succeed, something that doesn't happen in underprivileged homes.
Any case, its midnight and I'm sleepy.
This:
Interpretted as terming me as a male pig. Which I ignored because I didn't care. Then:
Terming me as a male pig then adding to it like I was resentful (though I guess you never specified me in this post) or a pouting little kid.
My next post is an attempt at diffusing the situation saying I bought into the possibility (I was clear to underpin that the second time since I realized I hadn't the first).
Was followed by me interpretting your post as you saying I was being a resentful male pig and basing my logic off of blind faith, and then you undermined my credibility by telling me my arguments were nonsensical and full of fallacy.
Which I followed with a post where I figured your problem with accepting my argument had something to do with a preconception that I was a male pig so I tried to outline the principals that my theory was founded on (i.e men and women's brains are different) since I figured you were simply attempting to deny that because my similar impression of you was a bra burning feminist who was convinced that one day a penis would = a vagina.
Which followed by electricitylikesme laughing at my post which I took as encouragement but I really didn't care so I attempted to end the argument again.
Then he posted that I was basically undeserving of argument.
Which I took great offense to.
And it spiraled out of control. It substends from you taking my argument as something it wasn't and me then taking your counter argument as something it wasn't.... I think.
Yes but when someone starts with the conclusion of 2+2=4 you don't tell them to prove it. I'm starting with a conclusion based off of my experience in the classroom and telling you to disprove it would be more accurate summary, but still there's zero data I can find that backs up either direction. Cat's sources make good arguments against male paranoia but they don't address anything scientific which is the foundation of my argument. While I'm admitting that there's no way to know either way until I either find a real source that says one way or another. I didn't mean to start with the supposition that my position was absolute fact, I thought it was backed by psychology (why scientists don't publish their work where it can be freely viewed I don't know) which I recognize as being the most esoteric field in science and probably the most likely to be viewed as total bullshit 50 years from now.
Her manner and tone are not substantially different from anyone else participating in this discussion. Except yours, I guess. None of us have tossed insults around as far as I can recall.
Say it with me: Individual variation within the two groups greatly outpaces the observed variation between the groups.
You know what's a fun one though? The observed differences in spatial relations ability between men and women can be eliminated by 6-8 hours playing Call of Duty. And it lasts! Turns out videogames serve some purpose.
Edit: MKR. Hey, hey MKR. Eat my dick, MKR. Chow down.
Edit Again: Oh, we covered that already? Eh. The number of times I see "but but but... they must be different! It's so obvious!" has caused me to skim over a lot of this.
If you're looking for why girls do better in school, start at the top, and you'll probably get the answer before you hit neurotransmitters.