/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11127586]

/SCI/ ABSOLUTELY BTFO
T
F
O

[Anonymous No.11127592]

>>11127586
Afaik the general claim is not that men are better at maths, it's that they are overall more attracted to maths (and in general the study of systems) than women.
It's one thing to have the capacities, it's another to have the desire.

[Anonymous No.11127596]

>>11127592
So you admit that girls are just as good as math than men, then? And it's just that men are more attracted to the topic? Can we then finally end the myth that women are bad at logic?

[Anonymous No.11127598]

>>11127596
what myth? do people say that in real life?

[Anonymous No.11127602]

>>11127598
Yes. In fact female professors in my university have said it themselves. These were my female programming professors and they said themselves that men outperform women in these fields, including math.

[Anonymous No.11127603]

>>11127586
No one says that though.

[Anonymous No.11127606]

>>11127603
Go to /g/ then. A lot of people say men are better than women in STEM fields, because "men outperform women a lot more", which of course has just been debunked.

[Anonymous No.11127613]

>>11127596
>Can we then finally end the myth that women are bad at logic?
Yes.
However, I would respect the (hu)man who attempts to use logic but is poor at it, rather than the (hu)man who is good at it but prefers to use emotions.
I hope what I am inferring is clear.

[Anonymous No.11127615]

>>11127613
It says in the study that girls use the same area in the brain when solving math problems, then that means the myth that "girls use emotions and boys use logic" has also been debunked. Didn't you read the article or even the pic? How ignorant are you?

[Anonymous No.11127622]

>>11127586
>We proved this by looking at something we don't really understand and not seeing something that we can easily understand as making them different

[Anonymous No.11127626]

>>11127622
These are BRAIN SCANS studied and researched by actual scientists, they know what they are talking about. Are you a scientist, my friend? If not, then shut up.
It's obvious that they actually do understand it since they are making the claim, otherwise they wouldn't make such a claim. Get that right through your skull.

[Anonymous No.11127627]

>>11127596
If women were as good as men in maths there would be as many contributions from them as there are from men.
Being good at something is talent + work.

>Can we then finally end the myth that women are bad at logic?
Never heard that, the meme is that women tend to take decisions more based on intuitions and emotions than men.

[Anonymous No.11127628]

>>11127606
>/g/
you mean brainlet shills general?

[Anonymous No.11127629]

>>11127615
>"girls use emotions and boys use logic" has also been debunked
I was not implying that girls use emotion to solve math. (Actually if they did, that might be rather revolutionary in problem solving techniques.)
I was criticising their general disposition, something more on the lines of:
>>11127592
>It's one thing to have the capacities, it's another to have the desire.

Finally, if the myth really is
>"girls use emotions and boys use logic"
as you say, it is not debunked simply on the basis that they use logic in one field or subject matter.

As a closing note, no male mathematician worth their salt cares in the least. Including me. But it's an interesting topic.

[Anonymous No.11127630]

>>11127606
>/g/
HAHAHA! There's no one in /g/ in STEM. It isn't even science or math in any way. Not even programming. You must be fucking joking. Oh wait....I get it....you think CS is a "science" BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!

[Anonymous No.11127633]

>>11127586
Women have the same muscle groups as men, but you don't see every woman performing the same muscular tasks as men. Even when they become body builders, they are no match for men body builders. Also, there's no such "myth" since no one says that shit. That's retarded. This is a gender bait thread is all.

[Anonymous No.11127636]

>>11127586
OP confirmed for bait spammer: >>>/g/73485376

[Anonymous No.11127642]

>>11127586
Instead of testing young boys and girls, they should test developed men and women.
It's kinda useless to draw conclusions about gender differences based on kids that haven't gone through puberty.
They probably weren't even doing proof based math, which requires more creativity/cleverness, and instead they probably just did number crunching.

Also they should test the brains of the top .01% to see if there is a difference at the extreme (where it matters) instead of drawing a conclusion about the averages.
They could find what patterns are associated with the top .01% and see how the scans of the general population correlate with those patterns as well.

Also also, just because the same area is activated it doesn't mean both genders are equal.
I'm sure the same muscle groups are activated when doing a bench press but one gender can lift more weight.

[Anonymous No.11127643]

>>11127586
Can you post the DOI?

[Anonymous No.11127646]

>>11127626
>brain scans
if we knew that much about the brain, why can't we explain consciousness or pinpoint autism
This is as scientific as psychiatry.
Protip: if you can arbitrarily decide trannies are not a mental illness, then your field a sham

[Anonymous No.11127649]

>>11127642
>just because the same area is activated it doesn't mean both genders are equal.
Then why did the scientist claim that: because the same area is activated, then that means girls are just as good, if not better than men at math. ? As I have said, they wouldn't make such a claim if that were not the case.

I also don't think the extremes matter more than the averaged. It doesn't make a difference and you've given no evidence so far that the extremes should matter more.

Also, you can't say that muscle groups work the same as the brain groups. These are two completely different functions in our body, and both work differently. Sure men are a bit better in terms of physical strength but women are better in terms of intellectual prowess.

>>11127643
What's a DOI?

>>11127646
Same argument for my first reply. You're not a scientist and they are. You're just a random person on 4chan and claiming that their field is a sham means nothing. You have no qualifications to make such a claim.

[Anonymous No.11127657]

>>11127626
I'm a neuroimager. We know what parts are getting more blood and electrical activity. That is all. We don't know shit about how it actually works. It's like looking at two cities from space and saying "these must have the same amount of manufacturing capacity because we can see the same amount of light coming from them"

[Anonymous No.11127660]

>>11127657
So you're saying you're in the same field as the scientists who conducted this research, and that they are wrong in their claim?
Hmm, who am I supposed to believe? The one neuroimager on 4chan or the multiple professional neuroimagers that CNN themselves interviewed.
Maybe you're just bad at your field and that's why you don't understand how those activities work?

[Anonymous No.11127664]

>>11127660
>that CNN themselves interviewed
That alone makes me more credible

[Anonymous No.11127666]

>>11127642
>It's kinda useless to draw conclusions about gender differences based on kids that haven't gone through puberty.
THAT DOESN'T FIT THE NARRATIVE!!!!

[Anonymous No.11127672]

It's hard to take studies like this seriously because if a study showed that men are actually better than women at something, it would just get brushed under the rug and not published.

[Anonymous No.11127673]

>>11127602
>men outperform women in these fields, including math.
That is not an opinion, it's a fact. The opinions for why that is differ, but everybody can agree on the end result.

[Anonymous No.11127678]

>>11127672
>>11127673
>>11127666
>>11127664
Okay, I didn't know that the people from /sci/ are incels. That makes your arguments invalid.

[Anonymous No.11127685]

>>11127678
>pic related
Ah disappointing, you started off so strong. But since I'm not a hypocrite, and a fairer conversationalist who doesn't let emotions get in the way, I won't invalidate your argument, and continue to listen to you if you present better points than 'oh you lot are incels'.

[Anonymous No.11127687]

>>11127586
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/11/08/777187543/math-looks-the-same-in-the-brains-of-boys-and-girls-study-finds
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/health/math-boys-girls-brains-scn/
In the CNN article, Cantlon seems like shes trying to prove boys and girls are the same.
The NPR article is longer and has input from another psychologist.
They both touch on the societal factors explanation.

>Cantlon and her team got 104 kids between the ages of 3 and 10 to perform cognitive tests and watch videos of engaging math lessons while in an MRI scanner.

>"The results of this study are not too surprising because typically we don't see sex differences at the ages assessed in this study or for the types of math tasks they did, which were fairly simple," says David Geary

>But there is evidence of sex differences in some exceptional older students, Geary says.
>For example, boys outnumber girls by about three to one when researchers identify adolescents who achieve "very, very high-end performance in mathematics," Geary says, adding that scientists are still trying to understand why that gap exists.

[Anonymous No.11127689]

>>11127687
Why does being an adolescent matter though? Shouldn't brains work the same in all ages?
I find it hard to believe that boys and girls are equal when they are a child, but boys become "smarter" when they are both older. It doesn't make sense and I find it bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11127695]

>>11127689
It is after the onset of puberty that the sexes start to diverge.
Why would you think hormone levels don't affect the brain?

[Anonymous No.11127700]

>>11127606
Men do outperform women in STEM though.
That there is no difference in the brains of children dosn't changing that

[Anonymous No.11127703]

>>11127598
god I wish that tumor was me

[Anonymous No.11127707]

>>11127660
>Hmm, who am I supposed to believe?
The one whose claim makes the most sense.
But as you are genetically unable to do that, you will go with what the media tells you. This will mostly work but not always, especially in politically charged matters as the media tends to lie a lot in those cases.

[Anonymous No.11127719]

>>11127626
who the fuck do you think visits this site? normal people? it's dumb shit heads and weebs that made it into academics

[Anonymous No.11127724]

>>11127606
/g/ is just a consumerist board

[Anonymous No.11127725]

>>11127586
This is literally what /sci/ has been saying since the beginning. Ftfy.

[Anonymous No.11127727]

>>11127725
Then explain this >>11127687

[Anonymous No.11127731]

>>11127586
who even cares, why do losers care so fucking much about gender.
If you've ever been in a math class at uni no one cares what gender you are whether you're a student or teacher as long as you're good at math.

[Anonymous No.11127735]

>>11127731
Ah yes, the "I don't care therefore no one should care about it and no research should be done about it" argument.

[Anonymous No.11127740]

>>11127660
Absolutely. High level sensational papers are wrong the vast majority of the time. It is called the reproducibility crisis. In fact if you see an article in science or nature there is a greater than 75% chance that the experiment or its conclusions are dead wrong.

These authors found some boys and girls with similar brain scans. That by no means shows what they claim. To make this clear to you: There were three Americans riding on a train in England, one a biologist, one a physicist, and one a mathematician. They look out the window and see four white sheep. The biologist turns to the group and says "Ah ha, so all the sheep in England are white." The physicist responds "No, no, no. All we know is that there are four white sheep in England." To which the mathematician replies "No, no, no. All we know is that there are four sheep in England that are white on one side."

[Anonymous No.11127743]

>>11127740
This is the most retarded and over-complicated argument I have ever seen. Is this how you talk to people in real life?

[Anonymous No.11127755]

>>11127743
hahaha, you think that is complicated? Wow you really are an fopdoodle who believes a bunch of flapdoodle.

[Anonymous No.11127761]

>>11127735
no. If you're good at math you're good at math. I'm not against any research, it's just that this isn't that important since no serious person in any field makes a prejudicial distinction of someone solely from their race/gender before even listening to them. You shouldn't do that, and you also shouldn't trust a news headline and spam it on an image board because it's annoying.

[Anonymous No.11127764]

>>11127761
>because it's annoying.
So if YOU find it annoying then no one should be able to say it? Are you like, God, to think that you're allowed to say what is and what isn't allowed in this site? You're not even an admin or a moderator of this site. We can talk about it if we want to, we're not breaking any rules. You're the one who's breaking the rules by being off-topic about this whole thing.

[Anonymous No.11127768]

>>11127649
>What's a DOI?
Get off my board

[Anonymous No.11127796]

>>11127764
no there's nothing to talk about, It's a pointless discussion that has nothing to do with our understanding of math as no one today cares about this other than people not involved in it. And even at times when people do there will be serious people like Hardy or Turing or whatever that recognise talent wherever it comes from.
Just go and spam this on pol or something. You're annoying.

[Anonymous No.11127800]

>>11127796
>>11127731
Just admit that you're just a dumb gay anime incel poster. You don't like talking about topics that will help women in STEM be motivated because none of them will have sex with you. How sad.

[Anonymous No.11127801]

Okay. This is stupid.
1.First off all, brain-scans do lie. Or rather, their validity as measurment depends on context. That's common knowledge by now, I thought. Well. Knowledge is not the buisness of CNN, apparently.
2.Men and women have similar avarages in math performances, afaik, with men having a much broader distribution, making most of the highest perfoming and lowest performing humans in math male. Did the study engage with that or collect new data? I don't see it then, so shit article. People trying to disprove established facts with brain scans is nothing new and still silly. We had good measures for all sorts of human performance long before somebody could use brain scans like we can today. Does not change a thing, brain scans can at best help explain how things work we already know happen in the world.
3.In general, the generalizing phrasing of the article is dumb-ass and self-defeating. Few people believe that there many things that apply to all men or all women. You can only talk about differences in avarages, in distribution, checked against different factors, if you want to talk about anything even remotely approximating reality.

Article was obviously written by an idiot and does not help understanding the science.

[Anonymous No.11127805]

>>11127800
you're a sexist incel who believes women need help in stem. I don't

[Anonymous No.11127822]

>>11127586
>gender related studies

To the thrash it goes.

[Anonymous No.11127823]

>>11127800
If you need external motivation to succeed at the highest level in a field, you are not even in the ballpark. You are not competing. Motivating some random girl to finish her 3 years IT degree, sure, but the same principle still applies.

To suggest females are intelligent and at the same time need this kind of trash to be motivated is contradictory. It's a personal handicap at best that is not other peoples responsibility.

[Anonymous No.11127825]

>>11127596
Why so buttmad?

[Anonymous No.11127826]

>>11127586
boys are not better than girls at math in elementary school because it only requires memorization.

Men smash women at higher education math because it requires actual thinking and reasoning skills.

[Anonymous No.11127833]

>>11127615
How dumb are you to infer that women use emotion to solve math is what he implied. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.11127839]

>>11127805
How the fuck is trying to help women make me sexist? And I'm not an incel since I'm a woman and I'm not a virgin like you.
If your incel brain still don't understand, women sometimes get "outperformed" by men in STEM fields BECAUSE they don't get the same motivation that men get, so this research should help women be more motivated and in turn, make them perform just as much IF NOT BETTER than men. Got that right through your thick skull yet?

>>11127801
>Article was obviously written by an idiot
Yeah, because you're obviously better than the actual scientists with actual qualifications involved in the research.
They actually spent time and money on this unlike you who just soullessly browse this website because you're an incel who doesn't have a job and you live with your parents.

[Anonymous No.11127847]

>>11127826
This is what incels actually believe. Holy shit!

[Anonymous No.11127856]

>>11127839
right really funny. You're a projecting incel larping as a woman to misrepresent them, fuck off with this garbage.

[Anonymous No.11127864]

>>11127856
I have no idea what you just said, but if that makes you feel better, then go ahead.

[Anonymous No.11127869]

>>11127586
>myth
no one says that. lol go outside sometime and stop making up fake things to feel better about yourself

[Anonymous No.11127870]

>>11127847
oh no!

[Anonymous No.11127874]

>>11127689
>>11127586
>>11127596

>Why does being an adolescent matter though? Shouldn't brains work the same in all ages?
It matters because of the Wilson effect, i.e. greater expression of genes with increasing age. This is the reason why some kids have lighter hair when they are young but then they start to get darker as they get older.
It works the same with mental traits. Remember, the Minnesota study found that black and white children adopted to rich families had similar IQ at age 7. But when they retested them at age 17 they found the familiar 15 point gap that exists in general population.

Judging by the fact that those kids were in ages 3 to 10 I suspect this is the same case. What would be definitive proof that women are as good at math is if they did this study on adults.
We can only speculate why they didn't do so.

[Anonymous No.11127888]

>>11127856
>>11127847
leddit is leaking from its anus again

[Anonymous No.11127889]

>>11127615
this clearly a bait

[Anonymous No.11127971]

>>11127586
Proof that girls are good at math = a cheap sensationalist """"""""""study""""""""""""
Proof that girls are bad at math = reality and history

[Anonymous No.11127985]

>>11127586
>jewnn
>reputable source

[Anonymous No.11127997]

>>11127586
i thought that maths were a social construct made to enpower white m*les
Im confused.
>>11127592
Men tend to die for their dreams (some people call it autism)

[Anonymous No.11128009]

>>11127678
>>11127586
Excellent bait from feminist flaseflagging basement dweller

[Anonymous No.11128013]

>>11127672
Exactly why 90% of modern social "science" is completely bullshit. These retards can't even replicate their most basic findings, and we're somehow supposed to believe them?

[Anonymous No.11128031]

>>11127971
die incel

[Anonymous No.11128040]

>>11127586
Females lack the intellectual maturity and dedication to study math. Also, on average males have higher variance in performance, meaning on an absolute level there are more male geniuses. Also, a major flaw in this is that they're only measuring pre-pubescent children, so of course they're going to be similar in many areas, but that doesn't meant that there aren't factors later on in development that gives males an advantage.

[Anonymous No.11128054]

>>11127586
>they use the same networks
>therefore they are equal
lmao, except the structure of those networks aren't the same.

[Anonymous No.11128057]

>>11128054
lol fuck off incel

[Anonymous No.11128063]

>>11128057

[Anonymous No.11128065]

>>11127586
>Several studies have already debunked the myth that industrial-grade factory pistons push harder than car engine pistons. Now, researchers have diagrams that proves pistons use hydraulics, no matter the size.

[Anonymous No.11128082]

>>11127586
>You can overlay the network from girls on top of the network from boys and they are identical
>Typical socialization can exacerbate small differences between boys and girls that can snowball into how we treat them in science and math
So the article starts out with "No differences", then they shift to "Small differences", which is it?

[Anonymous No.11128097]

>>11127586
How did this even get funding? It’s already an obvious truth that genius appears in both genders.

[Anonymous No.11128098]

>>11127839

>Yeah, because you're obviously better than the actual scientists with actual qualifications involved in the research.
>They actually spent time and money on this unlike you who just soullessly browse this website because you're an incel who doesn't have a job and you live with your parents.

Heh. Weirdo. Even for a troll.
I left home within month after school. Not sure what that tells you.
I live with my girlfriend now. Very happy, functioning long term relationsship. Not sure what that tells you.
I browse here for the first time in month because I am on sick leave from my fulltime job and are gettomg bored, Not sure what that tells you.
While no researcher, I have actual formal training in psychology. That tells me I am a lot more qualified than you or some retarded journalist. I mean, for starters, I would not confuse a badly written, badly reported news article for "science", nor would I expect an unqualified journalist to report on the results of a study properly. Neither would I consult the researcher of any study but rather other researchers who work on the same problem when I wanted the most objective opinion on a study (which you would know, if, you wouldn't be so obviously illiterate in scienctific conduct.

No cry yourself to sleep with your cat/dildo/flashlight or learn at least to troll properly.

[Anonymous No.11128104]

>>11128097

I significant percantage of "obvious" psychological studies do not give you the expect result. The point of science is also to actually know, not to "know" because it's popular opinion.

[Anonymous No.11128346]

>>11127586
>young children
That’s the problem. Most women are mindfucked by hormones during puberty.

[Anonymous No.11128353]

>>11127598
>posts a woman with no tits and short hair as evidence that masculinization has nothing to do with mathematical prowess O_o

[Anonymous No.11128360]

>>11127586
>debunked the myth
This sounds made up. I've never heard of anyone saying something like that. In fact, gender has never ever come up in reference to math.

[Anonymous No.11128364]

>>11127672
correct

>>11127678
I, I have to protect women! SHUT UP INCEL ARGHHHHHHHH

>Both sexes reacted less positively to the male-favoring differences, judging the findings less important, less plausible, more surprising, more offensive, more harmful, and more upsetting, as well as judging the research less well-conducted and studies of that type more inherently sexist

https://psyarxiv.com/nhvsr/

[Anonymous No.11128370]

>>11128360
Haven't you read this thread? A lot of incels saying that this study is false and that men are still better at math than women.

[Anonymous No.11128385]

>>11128370
the study isn't false, just their conclusions have nothing to do with the evidence. same regions of the brain lighting up during a task says nothing about the performance of the ability to do that task.

[Anonymous No.11128389]

>>11128385
So you're just one of those people who think women are not as smart as men when it comes to STEM...

[Anonymous No.11128392]

>>11127596
If they're not interested in the thought process, any time they aren't compelled to use either women will be bad at both math and logic.

[Anonymous No.11128401]

>>11128389
because they're not. and i think it has to do with male/female connectomes being different structurally.

[Anonymous No.11128404]

>>11127596
>Can we then finally end the myth that women are bad at logic?
No, because it's something you observe in every single academic field in existence. Especially philosophy and law.

[Anonymous No.11128407]

>>11127596
>Can we then finally end the myth that women are bad at logic?
except it's not a myth.

[Anonymous No.11128424]

>>11128401
d-delet this

[Anonymous No.11128434]

>>11127586
>Her team used functional MRI to measure the brain activity in 104 young children (3- to 10-years-old; 55 girls) while watching an educational video covering early math topics, like counting and addition.
>while watching an educational video covering early math topics, like counting and addition.
yeah their abilities are sure as shit the same at watching videos. lmao. how can roasties be this retarded? holy shit.

[Anonymous No.11128437]

>>11128434
>first to actually read it
based

[Anonymous No.11128463]

The retards will be impressed by the use of brain imaging which sound techy and stuff, without questioning their assumptions.
What do you think their conclusion would have been if males had a lower brain activity?
>Obviously, males have a lower ability to dedicate brain power than women to math, which means they're effectively poor at math
And if it were higher?
>Obviously, males need to spend more energy to solve problem, meaning they are less intelligent than women.

If you want to measure mathematical ability, have them solve math problems and compare the results. There's no fucking reason to do anything else.
>but what if the girls are just less interested?
Then their technique is worthless as well
>But what if the girls just have less background knowledge?
Then their technique is worthless as well.
The problem would in either case be the selected set of problem combined with the selected set of participants.
There's no reason to use their method unless you want to be dishonest.

[Anonymous No.11128501]

>>11128463
Why do you think that you're smarter than actual scientists who spend their life on this research? Why do you keep questioning them?

[Anonymous No.11128507]

>>11128501
>appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.11128518]

>>11127586
And then during puberty boys brains get washed in different hormones and develop differently leading to difference in adult thought patterns

[Anonymous No.11128520]

>>11128401
How do you get less than 600 on any part of the SATs?

[Anonymous No.11128524]

>>11128501
Aren't you the same retard who didn't know what a DOI was?

[Anonymous No.11128528]

>>11127687
>scientists are still trying to understand why that gap exists

[Anonymous No.11128528,1]

>>11128528
What's wrong with that?