US Wins Math Olympiad For First Time In 21 Years 280
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. won the International Mathematical Olympiad for the first time in 21 years. Gender diversity is brought up in this NPR article because the eight team members on the U.S. team were all male, but they made a point to mention that of the top 12 people participating in the U.S. Math Olympiad, 2 are female, which is better than last year when there were no females in the top 12. "I will say that it's not really a super-great spectator sport, in the sense that if you are watching them, it will look like they are thinking," Po-Shen Loh, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University and head coach for Team USA says. "Although I will assure you that inside their heads, if you could spectate, that would be quite a sport."
Why is Slashdot so focused on counting penises? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why has Slashdot been so focused on counting genitalia lately? Every day there's some story about how there are too many penises, or not enough vaginas, involved with some industry or activity. I mean, earlier today we had a shitty submission about the penis and vagina accountants not liking the numbers they're working with [slashdot.org], which I thought would mean no more penis and vagina counting submissions for the rest of the day. But nope! I was wrong! Now we have this submission, which although it mentions mathematics briefly, is far more focused on counting penises and vaginas.
Re:Why is Slashdot so focused on counting penises? (Score:4, Funny)
Heh heh heh, you said penis AND vagina, heh heh heh.
Re: Why is Slashdot so focused on counting penises (Score:4, Insightful)
it's most websites these days... they've been hijacked by a radical feminist SJW agenda and everything - EVERYTHING - must be, one way or another, about women.
i'm all for equality. who in their right mind is NOT? but if people are selected based on merit and women don't make it in, what is the story?
nobody is seeking to exclude women by policy. so if they don't cut it or if enough of them simply aren't interested, whose problem is that?
i know that this unpleasant movement won't last... it can't... it's too hypocritical and vitriolic. but man, the faster this brand of feminism ceases to be in public discourse, the better all of humanity will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Because theodp clickbait is good for revenue.
Did you want an answer, or a podium?
Re: (Score:2)
Not much racial diversity either -- most of the work winning these prizes seems to have been offshored to cheap Chinese prizewinners.
List_of_International_Mathematical_Olympiads [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It's an area that needs more study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
In short there are differences, but they are not enough to account for there being no females or very few on most of the teams. That suggests that selection for the teams is either not based purely on merit, or there is some issue preventing more girls studying mathematics to the highest levels.
It's a legitimate question to ask. That you simply don't like it or feel threatened by it is irrelevant.
Re:Why is Slashdot so focused on counting penises? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it really isn't, and unless you can prove that the team organizers are checking competitors' pants, or that the evil Patriarchy Boogeyman is stopping women from competing, you just come off like a shrill lunatic with a massive chip on her shoulder.
That suggests that selection for the teams is either not based purely on merit, or there is some issue preventing more girls studying mathematics to the highest levels.
Or that, overall, women just aren't as good as men at math. It's a legitimate possibility; that you simply don't like it or feel threatened by it is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
You really need to ask this?
Check the post counts on any story that does it.
I've noticed lately that the readership numbers of this site have gone down the shitter. It used to be that even the most boring, uninteresting stories used to get post counts in the hundreds, but not anymore. Most stories get less than 50, except for the ones where Dice can squeeze in something divisive.
You're looking at it the wrong way - the reason for low posts is that many of the reasonable and intelligent people have been driven off by the divisive stories (SJW clickbait). If they had posted fewer of those then more readers would have stayed. Now they have no choice but to post the crap "check your privilege" articles to get page hits.
It's a vicious circle, but wholly self-inflicted.
Re: (Score:2)
In engineering we call them poles and zeros, and when it comes to stability analysis, it's always important to remember to try to stick your poles on the zeros.
That's all I remember from that class really.
So not by the color of their skin (Score:3, Insightful)
But by the content of their character ?
Really I am sure the diversity police would have been in heaven, if the team had quotas and lost. It's for the greater good after all.
Re: (Score:3)
If they'd lost, they'd have been ignored. Have you noticed that the PAVAs* (Penis And Vagina Accountants) only seem to focus on highly successful enterprises and organizations? Silicon Valley, Google, Apple, etc. They don't really talk much about Yahoo because a) their market value is bleeding away, and b) their CEO is a woman, so it's hard to play the "institutional sexism" card there.
* Thanks first post AC. I'm going to use this from now on. It's a far better description than "Social Justice Warrior
Re: (Score:2)
I think it had something to do with the contents of their pants.
Re: (Score:3)
But apparently still not diverse enough.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the ideals of the civil rights movement, the people in the maths contest are to be judged on their math skills, not their genitalia.
Re: (Score:3)
King should be satisfied: His children have been judged on the content of their character, and faired poorly. They have spent much of their lives in legal action against each other as they fought over control of King's legacy, all seeking to exploit it either for commercial gain or in order to advance their own political goals. They strictly enforce the copyright on his famous speech too: If you want to use that quote in a movie or a documentary, expect to pay in the order of $60,000 for permission. They ev
leftie vs.rightie pitching (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Although I will assure you that inside their heads, if you could spectate, that would be quite a sport.
It's probably more interesting than what's happening in baseball [schlockmercenary.com], anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, Howard Tayler's artwork has sure improved over the years. (Although oddly, Sgt. Schlock doesn't look any different.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the other way around, all else being equal, right-handed pitching is generally better in baseball. Whereas left-handed batting is better. The reason is that batters tend to do better against a pitcher of the opposite handedness, since they have a better angle on the ball. And most players are right-handed, so it's generally better to pitch right and bat left. Left-handed pitchers do have some advantages, such as easier pick-off throws to first base, but the disadvantage of pitching mostly against oppos
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's better to pitch right and have a left-handed DH.
Don't nobody want to see a pitcher bat.
Re: (Score:2)
Left-handed pitchers do have some advantages, such as easier pick-off throws to first base,
Are you sure? That seems like a harder throw to me. You can't just throw it from your position on the mound, you have to turn your body so you can throw it towards the base.
And since the Olympiad (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
1998: Iran
When I was in college, to prepare for programming contests, we practiced on problems from programming contests that had taken place around the world. The Iranian problem set (from Tehran) was among the most difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Next time a recruiter contacts you, tell him you're looking for $200k (push up all our salaries).
Do jobs that pay less than that even get calls from recruiters?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Another notable point is that this is the first year in which Russia hasn't got any gold. There has been a minor shitstorm there over it, as math is traditionally considered a strong point (like hockey, heh).
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing in the rules preventing a woman from playing on an NFL team.
There is also no rule against women competing in the PGA tour. Some women have competed in PGA events. There just have not yet been any good enough to succeed at that level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fact of nature that an average male has 1.5X the upper body strength of an average female, so on average a man will hit a golf ball a lot further than a woman, ie: Both men and women are "good enough" to play golf but men have a significant competitive advantage on the first shot of each hole simply because they have male anatomy and can hit the ball harder.
This is irrelevant to the maths olympiad or chess competitions (where men routinely dominate), unless you are saying that the differences between men and women go further than physical strength.
Re: (Score:2)
Men and women have fundamentally different brains [livescience.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question since I know nothing about gold and haven't played it. Are the distances and forces involved such that strength is a significant factor? From the little I've seen on TV, the pro's seem to be concentrating on smooth accurate motions rather than whacking the ball hard.
Googling around, it seems that the gap is in putting, not whacking the ball off the tee (I'm sure there's a more technical term).
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf... [golfdigest.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Club head velocities are much, much higher in the men's tour than the women's. For the most part, the best women just can't get down the fairway as well. When you're 20-50 yards shorter than the average male off the tee on most of the holes, you can't compete.
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't many average men in the NFL or PGA tour. There are no shortage of women that would fare far, far better in the NFL or PGA than an average man. The issue here is at the extremes: there are really no women who will be able to compete with the *best* men in the NFL or PGA tour.
Chances are there will never be a woman who could play in the NFL. The PGA tour is another matter, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Get over it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The AC is confusing scientific proof with formal mathematical proof.
Science makes observations of the real world. If those observations make successful predictions, it is real science.
For example, if science can observe an MRI image of brain activity, and correctly determine the gender 99% of the time, this is proof of a difference.
The greater the sample size, the higher the confidence.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, if science can observe an MRI image of brain activity, and correctly determine the gender 99% of the time, this is proof of a difference.
Ah yes, fMRI.
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/f... [wired.com]
A system with such wildly difficult statistics that a dead fish appears to register an emotional response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And as usual, Slashdot commenters miss the point (Score:4, Insightful)
"So not by the color of their skin."
"Why is Slashdot so focused on counting penises?"
"Leftie vs. Rightie pitching."
"Diversity can go only so far. There are no women playing in the NFL and no men in the LPGA."
*DOUBLE FACEPALM*
The point, as so many have so persistently failed to grasp, is not simply that there are no female competitors on the US team. It's not simply that the top mathematics students overwhelmingly tend to be male. These are all true, but the point is not that this happens because males are intrinsically better at math. The point is that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that the brains of females are any less capable of developing mathematical proficiency and talent in this age group (or any age group, for that matter). Pointing to the existing disparity as evidence is a fallacy: once, not too long ago, there were no black baseball players.
Instead, the point is that there exists a systematic, cultural, and longstanding bias against encouraging and fostering scientific and mathematical proficiency in female students, and the purpose of bringing this up in the context of the IMO is to again remind Western countries such as the US, that this imbalance exists not because women just "happen" to be worse at math, but because women are DISCOURAGED from doing math and continue to be discouraged. And to be absolutely clear about this:
1. That does not necessarily mean that men are treated preferentially (in the sense of being given an easier time in STEM fields), but rather that women who attempt to persist in STEM paths tend to face a higher likelihood of varying degrees of sexism and sex discrimination from both peers and instructors that would not happen if they were male. Sometimes it is subtle, sometimes it is overt, but always, it is treatment that would not have happened if they were male.
2. This cultural attitude against women expressing interest in mathematics and science is not exclusive to men. In fact, it is very often women oppressing other women through peer pressure--in particular, the desire to conform to standards of behavior and personal interests that are more aligned with traditionally "feminine" pursuits. If you are a female teenager interested in math who had the remarkable fortune of not having had your parents ever ask you "why would you want to be a math major? Wouldn't that be too hard," or teachers who didn't think that "girls just don't seem to have the persistence and capability to do the kind of abstract thinking required for mathematics," you would no doubt find that your fellow female friends would almost invariably NOT want to be mathematicians or scientists. And that is also a form of bias that perpetuates the lack of females in mathematics.
The way a lot of guys react to gender inequality really fails to understand the basic problem. When someone calls out institutionalized sexism, that is not an indictment of individual male behavior. It is an attempt to call to attention a structural problem that is being perpetuated by continued obstinacy on the part of people (both male and female) who don't want to take the time to think about what it might be like to be in someone else's shoes for a change.
Re:And as usual, Slashdot commenters miss the poin (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And as usual, Slashdot commenters miss the poin (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that spacial rotations, manipulation, etc. are an important part of many mathematical fields, it doesn't surprise me that men tend to perform better on average. Also, this does not say that all men are better at math or that women cannot be brilliant mathematicians, merely that if you look at the number of elite mathematicians, that more of them will be male because they are biologically predisposed to be stronger at some of the aspects that make an individual better at math.
Also, you should account for a person's own internalization of their abilities and how it affects their behavior. If women tend not to be as good at math from an early age, many of them will take a disinterested approach to it. This is hardly unique to women as children and people of all ages and genders exhibit this behavior. Because there are areas where women tend to perform better than men (along with any other brain wiring differences that produce different effects in people) they may be more drawn to other areas of study and focus there time there.
The problem is that there is evidence to suggest that men and women are different, but there are some who will not accept that argument. I don't know whether that is because the fall prey to some of the same illogical reason that you point to above and assume that it means women can't do something or if it's just a simple matter of people treating their belief as an article of faith that must be true and therefor anything to the contrary must be false.
While there's certainly no lack of sexism in the world, it's a lot harder to accept that there's some kind of pervasive institutional problem when you have no reason to suspect that you should see roughly equal number of men and women among the ranks of the top mathematicians. Also, given that women earn ~45% of B.S. degree's in mathematics in the U.S. [randalolson.com] it makes the claims of institutional sexism (at least in this area) even harder to believe. Interestingly enough, women early ~70% of the B.S. degrees in English and foreign languages. Perhaps that is related to the scientific evidence that shows that females perform better than males in terms of verbal abilities.
I don't think you'll find many people who are against providing equal opportunity (or as much as we reasonably can) to everyone, but you can't get there with bad arguments. You end up fighting a problem that doesn't exist or attempting to use a solution that isn't going to work. I think that people are just tired of dealing with other people who don't care to look at the science or will reject it because it doesn't mesh with their existing views. It's a bit like trying to argue with someone who believes in young-earth creationism.
Re: (Score:2)
While there's certainly no lack of sexism in the world, it's a lot harder to accept that there's some kind of pervasive institutional problem when you have no reason to suspect that you should see roughly equal number of men and women among the ranks of the top mathematicians. Also, given that women earn ~45% of B.S. degree's in mathematics in the U.S. it makes the claims of institutional sexism (at least in this area) even harder to believe.
45% of B.S. degrees in mathematics in the states go to women, but 0% of US Mathematics Olympiad team members are female. You even point out that more generally there are fairly equal numbers of men and women in the top ranks of mathematics. So you have not answered the question of why there is this discrepancy. The institutional problem is with institution selecting and training team members.
Interestingly enough, women early ~70% of the B.S. degrees in English and foreign languages. Perhaps that is related to the scientific evidence that shows that females perform better than males in terms of verbal abilities.
I think that is far more likely to be due to social issues, specifically the repression of males who feel pressured t
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, the point is that there exists a systematic, cultural, and longstanding bias against encouraging and fostering scientific and mathematical proficiency in female students,
Given that I can't recall any encouraging or fostering of myself for my chosen field of employment, I can't muster up anything beyond apathy for those who complain about the lack of fostering for going into one field or another.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck off fascist. We're wise to your bullshit now. You don't give a fuck about women or their welfare. We know this is a political power play and we know the devastation your kind will wreak on our professions and hobbies if we let you in the door.
This story has been politicized. What should have been a celebration of the United States' winning victory in the Olympiad, and the evidence of year of math outreach paying off, has instead been turned into yet another attempt to kick mud into the faces of math ne
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
You're playing a persecution card that no longer exists, but is still happily cited when it's convenient to push feminist agendas.
Re: (Score:2)
you would no doubt find that your fellow [] friends would almost invariably NOT want to be mathematicians or scientists.
Doesn't this happen to all of us?
You offer NO PROOF for your claim (Score:2, Interesting)
You offer NO PROOF for your claim. In fact there is poor anecdotal evidence it is about the gender since it's consistently all male. There is no proof this is caused by "society peer pressure".
Personal opinion (with only anecdotal evidence) is that males are more motivated by math and as such get their talent developed further. I know several boys from my youth (myself included) that went absolutely bananas with math (and computers), studying more just for hobby and personal joy. I've known several girls th
Re: (Score:3)
> The point is that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that the brains of females are any less capable of developing mathematical proficiency and talent
If you want to be literal: no, for that precise point there might be no hard evidence, but there is enough evidence that females don't actually develop it, and that's what counts. I might have all the talent to become the world's #1 short distance runner, but I am not.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead, the point is that there exists a systematic, cultural, and longstanding bias against encouraging and fostering scientific and mathematical proficiency in female students
Fuck you. Prove it. I am sick of this shit. When I went to school way way way back in the mists of time, girls were encouraged over boys. My own son dealt with this shit too... and yet girls are STILL not at the top of the heap.
Stop abusing boys. You can not force girls to be on top of the heap... and this is nature: There will be a heap. Deal with it asshole. All you are doing is creating misogyny.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprised China Lost (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the US steals some of China's best brains.
I'm not sure where the US head coach, Po-Shen Loh, is from, but the accent ain't Texan.
21 years seems too long. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's fair to look for the reasons why women are not making the team. I think it's terrible to detract from the team's achievement by saying, 'Yeah, but there were no women' as if that somehow negates their victory or casts a bad light on it.
In looking for reasons why more women are not making the team, please don't tell me it's discrimination, either. If there are societal factors that cause women (as a general thing) not to choose to pursue math, look to those factors.
I suppose, though, that until
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're getting warm, but what I think primarily keeps women out of STEM is the fearfulness that is engrained into feminine culture. This is probably the result of the same primordial gender roles they can see, and deplore, so easily when they show up in men. Notice how every demonstration against science and its applications are heavily loaded with women? From the anti-nuke folk singers to the anti-vax film stars, these movements have been a few publicity-hogging manginas leading armies of women.
Re:One thing I have noticed (Score:5, Insightful)
entry level evolutionary psychology answers that question.
Women are psychologically uncomfortable with competing with men.
Argue with a women about something that your mutual power or status in the group. Women statistically shut off in these contests. Where as men statistically don't back down even if they have a good chance of getting pasted.
This goes back to our evolutionary roots in that men genetically DIE if they do not obtain status sufficient to obtain breeding rights where as women really just have to play it safe and they pass on their genes.
This encourages men to compete because if they do not compete they lose status, do not get breeding rights, and genetically die. And women both don't need to bother with that, their genetic priorities have nothing to do with their status or contests with males, and challenging males historically was dangerous because they could kill you if you threatened them with genetic death.
Thus in any competitive environment involving males, women do not feel comfortable or even motivated.
The idea from current education theory which has actually contributed to women doing better in a lot of subjects is to remote the competitive environment from subjects. Make things cooperative, turn the emotional intensity down a bit, and try to mellow things out.
This works really well for getting girls to feel comfortable.
The problem if you care is that in male evolutionary psychology, things that are not competed for are not worth anything. The male mind as programmed at a very deep level that it has to obtain status. If status is not being offered in something then it is probably pointless. If not only does it not offer status but it is hard and consumes a lot of time/energy/resources... then from an evolutionary perspective the male mind is programmed to see the entire thing as a threat to his genetic survival. He MUST obtain status and wasting a lot of his time doing something that doesn't get him what he needs means he'll have less time later to focus on that.
Thus you can't really educate girls and boys in the same school without shutting one of the sexes off... statistically.
If you have competition then the girls will shut off. If you don't then the boys will shut off.
This is basic and very very well understood and supported science at this point.
The problem is that its all political because there is this notion... which comes out of marxist theory... that people can be changed by their environments. I don't mean that in the way that you educate someone but I mean TOTALLY changed. As in your human nature can be entirely overridden and in fact the argument from a lot of people is that ALL human nature is a social construct.
So... gender itself is a social construct. A core belief of modern feminism is that there is NO difference between men and women mentally and psychologically. It is entirely a product of cultural and social conditioning. The theory from these people is that if you treat a girl like a boy you can make her identical to the boy mentally and psychologically. Indifferent to all the science that contradicts that.
Boys and girls are neurologically different. The brain structure can be told apart by neurologists rather easily. And psychologically boys and girls aver VERY different beasts.
The problem is that in many cases "science" is not politically correct. The left likes to think it is the party of science and reason. It is only that when science and reason either is convenient for the ideology or does not contradict it. But whenever it does... as science does in this case... they're as likely to be pigheaded on the subject as any bible thumping creationist.
And sadly while we recognize creationists for being what they are and largely exclude them from influencing the education system. We do not exclude marxist ideologues from influencing our education system.
Here some cute pink cheeked marxist dupe is going to contradict me. I welcome it. Come at me.
Re: (Score:3)
A core belief of modern feminism is that there is NO difference between men and women mentally and psychologically.
Unfortunately, you're right, and while men and women should have equal rights and equal treatment it will never mean that men and women are somehow completely the same. Biology alone should tell us that and pretending otherwise is naive at best.
I find it ironic that people who tell us to celebrate diversity exclude gender diversity. There is nothing wrong with the idea that men and women are different and why shouldn't we celebrate and enjoy that diversity too?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This goes back to our evolutionary roots in that men genetically DIE if they do not obtain status sufficient to obtain breeding rights where as women really just have to play it safe and they pass on their genes.
Oh dear, here comes the evopshcy.
It's intellectually dishonest to take behaviour models from one of our closest relative while not taking them also from our other closest relative (bonobos). As I'm sure you're aware the sexual behaviour of bonobos and chimps is very, very different. And if anything
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is sexual bonding?
Re: (Score:2)
A core belief of modern feminism is that there is NO difference between men and women mentally and psychologically.
No, it's actually the exact opposite. Read any introductory text on micro-aggressions, it will include examples of denying the psychological differences between men and women as things to avoid.
What feminism does argue against is the notion that because women might be predisposed to avoid conflict slightly more than men, that means they will always be worse at competing.
Re: (Score:2)
It currently shows as entirely unmodded to me.
It looks like (2)... which is what all my posts default to because I have an excellent rating at the moment. :D
I logged out to see if it changed and it still said (2).
Not sure what you're referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
Login... ask the question again and all shall be revealed.
Re: (Score:3)
How it relates to Marxism is irrelevant. The idea stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who said what. If you have reasons against it, state them. Saying that Marx said it, therefore it's false, is an irrelevant ad hominem.
You'd do better by scanning your posts for mentions of Marxism and replacing them by reasons instead of name-calling.
Re: (Score:2)
The arguments are funny. "There should be more women on their team!" vs. "Of the top 12 competitors, 2 were women." Women engaged in math competition are obviously interested in math, and have demonstrated staggering academic achievement in math; when placed next to men who have also demonstrated staggering academic achievement in math, they suck.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that our team won. I find it absolutely stunning considering that as of second grade, my son's official curriculum still involves counting my N on the number line.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't find any evidence of them even competing:
http://www.polyomino.org.uk/ma... [polyomino.org.uk]
Look at the scores. The US team includes only dudes.
5= USA3 Allen Liu 7 7 7 7 1 6 35 Gold Medal
5= USA6 David Stoner 7 7 7 7 7 0 35 Gold Medal
10= USA1 Ryan Alweiss 7 2 1 7 7 7 31 Gold Medal
10= USA4 Yang Liu 7 7 7 7 3 0 31 Gold Medal
26= USA5 Shyam Narayanan 7 7 2 7 5 0 28 Gold Meda
Re: (Score:2)
They were there to keep spirits up back at the hotel?
Re: (Score:2)
Concerns have also been raised over the years about a persistent gender gap in U.S. math achievement. All six members of this year's winning team are boys. "That is actually something that one hopes will change," Loh says. "The top 12 people in the country on the United States Math Olympiad happen to have two girls in it. One might say, 'Only 2 out of 12, that's terrible.' But I should say in many years, it was, unfortunately, zero."
That's from TFA. The mentioning 2 females are in the top 12 in the U.S. but they aren't good (high rank) enough to be included in the competition, I guess. Anyhow, gender has nothing to do with this and they (coaches) should never mention in their interview.
Re:Sad summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Its not just the US. Australia has a lot of data from national standardised testing, notably NAPLAN.
Girls consistent score slightly higher on average in most subjects. I don't think this means any failure or conspiracy in our schools, as it is well know that boys develop later. The difference is very obvious in early school years. If it is considered "a problem that needs fixing", you could set the start age for girls a bit earlier, say six months, and the scores could be equalised. Or you could just accept the "diversity".
However maths is a special case. Unlike all other areas, boys are a bit in front on average. More interestingly, the standard deviation is substantially larger, so there are more boys at both the bottom and top of scores. The higher the score band, the greater the disparity in numbers. (And again - only in maths) So it is no surprise if >90% of the olympiad-level students are male. If it was equal, something would be seriously wrong in the selection process.
Data can be seen here: http://reports.acara.edu.au/Ho... [acara.edu.au]
Select domain:numeracy and subgroup:sex
Note the M/F numbers in the first ("exempt") and last columns.
Project that as a normal distribution, and it will predict that the Maths Olympiad is a sausage-fest. Mathematically.
Re: (Score:2)
And hardly any white folk either.
Re: (Score:2)
Its actually worse than that. Men aren't predisposed to math. We're predisposed to COMPETE. Where as women are predisposed to sit quietly and watch when males compete.
This is basic evolutionary psychology. What drives women out of anything is an atmosphere of competition. Think about it.
Anything gets competitive... where men start trying really hard... the women sit down. They don't even try. Not because they can't but because they're programmed to not try.
And it gets worse because anything where men are no
Re: (Score:2)
Its actually worse than that. Men aren't predisposed to math. We're predisposed to COMPETE. Where as women are predisposed to sit quietly and watch when males compete.
How do you reconcile that with women's sports teams?
Even if you are right for a significant portion of the population. You can't apply that to everyone. There are plenty of women who are darn competitive, and there are plenty of men who aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
As I made clear, the issue is competition against males.
Women don't mind competing against women. They just shut off when they compete against men. I think I made this very clear.
Stop looking for a sentence to take out of context and try to actually understand what i'm talking about. It is in your own interest... you'll get more out of it.
The issue is evolutionary psychology as I said.
Men are MUST compete to obtain status and thus breeding rights.
Women historically were not in competition with males for sta
Re: (Score:2)
As I made clear, the issue is competition against males.
Women don't mind competing against women. They just shut off when they compete against men. I think I made this very clear.
No. you said math. I can even look that up for you.
You very expressly wrote:
Its actually worse than that. Men aren't predisposed to math. We're predisposed to COMPETE. Where as women are predisposed to sit quietly and watch when males compete.
So you have the weird temerity to say that as soon as a male is in any competition, all females just drop out? Because that is what it appears you wrote. A woman will not compete against a man. Especially in math?
In general, and in competition against males.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08... [nytimes.com]
Please to elaborate on this young lady. Looks like a couple males beside her. No doubt those girls just kept the benches warm while
Re: (Score:2)
From the same post where you cherry picked that quote to make a really sad attempt at strawmanning me:
"Anything gets competitive... where men start trying really hard... the women sit down. They don't even try. Not because they can't but because they're programmed to not try."
Here's the thing, pudding... I'm a seasoned campaigner... I forget more about rhetoric on the john every day than you'll ever know. I know... Dick measuring... listen to me whip out my big throbbing e-peen and compare sizes. But you se
Re: (Score:2)
Women furthemore do not NEED to compete to obtain genetic survival. All they need is for some guy to shoot a load of semen into them and bingo... genetic survival obtained.
Out of interest, have you ever seen a new born baby? You might notice that if left alone for too long they will simply die. They are literally unable to look after themselves. Genetic survival is so, so much more complex than you are making out.
And for men... low status means genetic death.
No it doesn't, because we're neither chimps nor
Re: (Score:2)
> How do you reconcile that with women's sports teams? There are no men in them.
How do you reconcile that with competitive activities that have both men and women on them?
It's difficult for grown women and men to compete effectively in activities that require strength, as men on average are stronger.
But the idea that women lack a competitive aspect, or that they won't compete in any activity if a man is there, is simply wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I never suggested anything of the kind... you're just taking me out of context. Your post is a strawman.
If you want to debate this with me, then login. Otherwise, I'll just leave you with that and will not respond to further comments from you unless you do login.
Re: (Score:2)
And if there is no competition... men lose all interest. This is why so many subjects and hobbies are dominated by one sex or the other. The males like competitive hobbies. Sure there are the guys that collect stamps or build model trains. But lets not focus on teh ultra betas for a second here. Men in general don't like to do those things.
No real (Scots)man-fallacy. If you honestly believe that men never have any interest in cooperating, then you have a lacking understanding of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.
Although there is some truth in what you say, your sweeping generalizations and absolutes weaken your position.
Even within competition, there must be cooperation. Try being on a Hockey or soccer team, while trying to outcompete your team mates. You'll find that you start getting the ball or puck a whole lot less often because everyone knows they'll never get it back once you have it.
We had a few kids like that on my kid's hockey team. They either learned to cooperate or quit. And we had girls who were as competitive as any. Way too many to be considered exceptions.
Now I don't doubt there are some folks in here
Re: (Score:2)
Truisms? Really? Women admit to this quite freely sport. Its not even remotely controversial. Even the most hardcore of the hardcore feminists admit that women have an issue with competing. Its often referred to by euphemisms like "assertiveness". How the girls don't like to stand up in class put their neck out but the boys do. More aggressive... see? And where does all that hesitation from the girls and aggressiveness from the boys come from?
Nowhere? Did we just make it up? Are girls just as aggressive as
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
?
Re: (Score:2)
Not a single european country.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is very much a European country.
Re: (Score:2)
Geographically... they have territory in Europe... I don't know if I would call them a european country. Eurasian maybe.
Regardless my point was that the English, the French, the Swedes, the Swiss, the Dutch, etc didn't win... I'm going over the scores and they haven't even gotten into the top ten in ages... and yet we're supposed to be the big math dummies? What do you know... stupid country that runs the CPU industry isn't that bad at math. Who would have guessed?
The Eastern europeans actually seem to do b
Re: (Score:2)
Culturally, Russia (well, the dominant culture in it, since it's technically multicultural) is very much Eastern European. It's quite obvious even from history alone, since it was always a major player specifically in the European political games, the elites (including the ruling dynasties) have actively intermarried etc. It had some periods during which it swung somewhat away from its European roots and towards Asian external influences - notably, the late Kievan Rus / early Muscovy period, roughly Mongol
Re: (Score:2)
As to Russia having eastern european culture... no question... they're a product of the Eastern Roman empire after all... much as they might think they're something else.
Regardless, I was referring to the western europeans... if you look at the records you'll see eastern europeans actually do fairly well in that competition for some reason. The poles won somewhere in there. So sorry if you took offense for suggesting the Russians weren't Europeans... its hard to think of them that way when they go out of th
Re: (Score:2)
As to Russia having eastern european culture... no question... they're a product of the Eastern Roman empire after all... much as they might think they're something else.
They actually don't. They are very much aware of the Byzantine connection and are proud of it. Look up "Third Rome" to see what I mean.
its hard to think of them that way when they go out of their way to tell us all the time how "different" they are... One tends to just think of them as different after a time. Saves them the trouble of telling us again how all our assumptions about their psychology and motivations and our interests are wrong. :)
Yeah. It basically happens every time Russia goes on another period of anti-liberalism, because it's convenient to equate liberalism and Europe (esp. Western Europe) and its offshoots, and then go ranting about the clash of civilizations etc. Third Rome actually kinda sorta plays into this also, because from that perspective Russia is basically the only remaining piece of tr
Re: (Score:2)
I've never met a Russian that knew anything about Byzantium. Russia certainly never learned from their Sires. They're repeating the same error they made with Venice all over again.
This doesn't end well.
As to the notion that they're pure after having the Soviets run their world... It is to laugh, is it not?
Re: (Score:3)
I've never met a Russian that knew anything about Byzantium.
You met me for one :)
In truth, though, "Third Rome" is part of the history textbooks. I don't know how it is presented today, but back when I studied history in school it was fairly neutral, but certainly featured quite prominently, largely because it was an important part of the founding myth of the first czars after post-Mongol reunification.
Also, pretty much any devout Eastern Orthodox Russian will know quite a lot about Byzantium for the simple reason that it's where the Russian church tradition origina
Re: (Score:2)
As to meeting one for the first time... I am truly honored then.
*tips hat*
I've looked for such as you for a long time... I went looking for someone like you on Russian forums... I found little more than deluded children fantasizing about the return of the old USSR. It was not encouraging.
I had actually given up hope of ever finding any one from Russia with your background.This is genuinely interesting for me now.
As to origin, most of the Russians I talked to traced themselves back to Steppe people of the Ru
Re: (Score:3)
As to origin, most of the Russians I talked to traced themselves back to Steppe people of the Russian planes rather than old Byzantium.
In terms of ethnic descent, this is definitely the case. Not just steppes, though, but also forests. Most of what is Central and Northern European part of Russia today was one giant forest ~1000 years ago, with small settlements along the rivers living off the trade with passing ships selling fur, amber and other similar goods for export. Mostly Slavonic, but also a significant Finno-Ugric component.
The Byzantium "descent" is more spiritual in nature, through the acceptance Orthodoxy. Though there's also a
Re: (Score:2)
What do you know... stupid country that runs the CPU industry isn't that bad at math.
Out of interest, which is the biggest selling CPU instruction set?
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, easy math is easier for some than for others. I always tell kids they can check a subtraction by reversing it with an addition. 1984 + 21 = 2005. Oops, something went wrong! If you do the problem again, you'll find your mistake. 2015 - 21 = 1994.