Current Events > No intrinsic gender differences in children's mathematical abilities

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
COVxy 07/17/18 11:39:21 AM #51:	Squall28 posted... I've said I already seen the plots and the deviation looks small there. I want to see what the actual numbers are per test. And you expect that the standard deviation will be a better descriptor than just looking at the distribution? Lol. In what way does the variance look 'small'? In comparison to what? We know they aren't at ceiling. We know they aren't performing the same (age predicts). In many of these measures, they are getting scores the constitute a large proportion of the scale. Idk what you mean by "variance seems small". --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905232898] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>I've said I already seen the plots and the deviation looks small there. I want to see what the actual numbers are per test.</quote> And you expect that the standard deviation will be a better descriptor than just looking at the distribution? Lol. In what way does the variance look 'small'? In comparison to what? We know they aren't at ceiling. We know they aren't performing the same (age predicts). In many of these measures, they are getting scores the constitute a large proportion of the scale. Idk what you mean by "variance seems small".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 07/17/18 11:59:46 AM #52:	COVxy posted... Squall28 posted... I've said I already seen the plots and the deviation looks small there. I want to see what the actual numbers are per test. And you expect that the standard deviation will be a better descriptor than just looking at the distribution? Lol. In what way does the variance look 'small'? In comparison to what? We know they aren't at ceiling. We know they aren't performing the same (age predicts). In many of these measures, they are getting scores the constitute a large proportion of the scale. Idk what you mean by "variance seems small". The deviation looks low in comparison to the size of the mean. That's why I am curious about what the actual number is so I can get a more precise feel for what it is. --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:905233936] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>I've said I already seen the plots and the deviation looks small there. I want to see what the actual numbers are per test.</quote> And you expect that the standard deviation will be a better descriptor than just looking at the distribution? Lol. In what way does the variance look 'small'? In comparison to what? We know they aren't at ceiling. We know they aren't performing the same (age predicts). In many of these measures, they are getting scores the constitute a large proportion of the scale. Idk what you mean by "variance seems small".</quote> The deviation looks low in comparison to the size of the mean. That's why I am curious about what the actual number is so I can get a more precise feel for what it is.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 12:05:52 PM #53:	The standard deviation in comparison to the mean doesn't give you the information you seek, and certainly wouldn't be more informative than just looking at the distributions. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905234242] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>The standard deviation in comparison to the mean doesn't give you the information you seek, and certainly wouldn't be more informative than just looking at the distributions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 07/17/18 12:09:12 PM #54:	lol lovefist so butthurt that TC is infinitely more intelligent than he is that he argues for the side that women inherently have less aptitude in math than men. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:905234419] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>lol lovefist so butthurt that TC is infinitely more intelligent than he is that he argues for the side that women inherently have less aptitude in math than men.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mario2000 07/17/18 12:10:51 PM #55:	PoopPotato posted... What if women don't get into Stem simply because they dont want to? Just because you are good at something doesn't mean you enjoy it or want to do it for a living. This is the point where you ask "Why don't they want to?" --- Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslash <cite>mario2000 posted [p:905234501] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>PoopPotato posted...</cite> <quote>What if women don't get into Stem simply because they dont want to? Just because you are good at something doesn't mean you enjoy it or want to do it for a living.</quote> This is the point where you ask "Why don't they want to?"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 07/17/18 12:16:28 PM #56:	COVxy posted... The standard deviation in comparison to the mean doesn't give you the information you seek, and certainly wouldn't be more informative than just looking at the distributions. Why does it not? If there's a test, and the average is 70, and everyone scores within 5 points if that it doesn't mean much. Contrast that to an average of 70 but people fluctuate like 20 points. That's a test where you can differentiate high and low performers. The plot distribution gives you an overall look at the data which I generally like, but I want to pinpoint something. --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:905234785] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>The standard deviation in comparison to the mean doesn't give you the information you seek, and certainly wouldn't be more informative than just looking at the distributions.</quote> Why does it not? If there's a test, and the average is 70, and everyone scores within 5 points if that it doesn't mean much. Contrast that to an average of 70 but people fluctuate like 20 points. That's a test where you can differentiate high and low performers. The plot distribution gives you an overall look at the data which I generally like, but I want to pinpoint something.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MorbidFaithless 07/17/18 12:19:00 PM #57:	mario2000 posted... PoopPotato posted... What if women don't get into Stem simply because they dont want to? Just because you are good at something doesn't mean you enjoy it or want to do it for a living. This is the point where you ask "Why don't they want to?" The answer is men. Like, pretty much full out. Men do not make women in STEM comfortable, unconsciously or purposefully. --- walk like thunder <cite>MorbidFaithless posted [p:905234911] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>mario2000 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PoopPotato posted...</cite> <quote>What if women don't get into Stem simply because they dont want to? Just because you are good at something doesn't mean you enjoy it or want to do it for a living.</quote> This is the point where you ask "Why don't they want to?"</quote> The answer is men. Like, pretty much full out. Men do not make women in STEM comfortable, unconsciously or purposefully.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IllegalAlien 07/17/18 12:25:35 PM #58:	ITT: >Poor, middle school level understandings of statistics >Poor logical conclusions drawn from the findings >Culture doesn't exist!!!!! Results of the paper are not surprising. They posed a hypothesis, tested it, posted results. They may be methodological shortcomings in their experiments, but picking some bullshit like "n is too small" when it's clearly a fine size is embarrassing. --- "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." <cite>IllegalAlien posted [p:905235209] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>ITT: >Poor, middle school level understandings of statistics >Poor logical conclusions drawn from the findings >Culture doesn't exist!!!!! Results of the paper are not surprising. They posed a hypothesis, tested it, posted results. They may be methodological shortcomings in their experiments, but picking some bullshit like "n is too small" when it's clearly a fine size is embarrassing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thelovefist 07/17/18 12:36:36 PM #60:	GiftedACIII posted... lol lovefist so butthurt that TC is infinitely more intelligent than he is that he argues for the side that women inherently have less aptitude in math than men. Where did I argue that? --- "honestly the worst thing about Shaun King is how pro-cop he is" - averagejoel <cite>thelovefist posted [p:905235771] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>lol lovefist so butthurt that TC is infinitely more intelligent than he is that he argues for the side that women inherently have less aptitude in math than men.</quote> Where did I argue that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 07/17/18 12:46:29 PM #61:	thelovefist posted... GiftedACIII posted... lol lovefist so butthurt that TC is infinitely more intelligent than he is that he argues for the side that women inherently have less aptitude in math than men. Where did I argue that? The study's purpose was to counter the belief that the under-representation of women in science and mathematics careers can be traced back to intrinsic differences in aptitude. You have dismissed the study and are clearly against it with your childish potshots against TC for using it. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:905236354] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>lol lovefist so butthurt that TC is infinitely more intelligent than he is that he argues for the side that women inherently have less aptitude in math than men.</quote> Where did I argue that?</quote> The study's purpose was to counter the belief that the under-representation of women in science and mathematics careers can be traced back to intrinsic differences in aptitude. You have dismissed the study and are clearly against it with your childish potshots against TC for using it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thelovefist 07/17/18 12:53:17 PM #62:	GiftedACIII posted... You have dismissed the study and are clearly against it with your childish potshots against TC for using it. Where did I dismiss the study? You do understand that I can have a low opinion of TC, express that opinion and that these thoughts are entirely independent of my opinion on the study in the OP right? --- "honestly the worst thing about Shaun King is how pro-cop he is" - averagejoel <cite>thelovefist posted [p:905236697] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>You have dismissed the study and are clearly against it with your childish potshots against TC for using it.</quote> Where did I dismiss the study? You do understand that I can have a low opinion of TC, express that opinion and that these thoughts are entirely independent of my opinion on the study in the OP right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 07/17/18 12:55:19 PM #63:	thelovefist posted... GiftedACIII posted... You have dismissed the study and are clearly against it with your childish potshots against TC for using it. Where did I dismiss the study? You do understand that I can have a low opinion of TC, express that opinion and that these thoughts are entirely independent of my opinion on the study in the OP right? thelovefist posted... Squall28 posted... I just don't think the study really proves anything. That's because it doesn't. Again, look at who TC is... Close your account. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:905236814] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>You have dismissed the study and are clearly against it with your childish potshots against TC for using it.</quote> Where did I dismiss the study? You do understand that I can have a low opinion of TC, express that opinion and that these thoughts are entirely independent of my opinion on the study in the OP right?</quote> <cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>I just don't think the study really proves anything.</quote> That's because it doesn't. Again, look at who TC is...</quote> Close your account.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thelovefist 07/17/18 12:56:58 PM #64:	GiftedACIII posted... thelovefist posted... GiftedACIII posted... You have dismissed the study and are clearly against it with your childish potshots against TC for using it. Where did I dismiss the study? You do understand that I can have a low opinion of TC, express that opinion and that these thoughts are entirely independent of my opinion on the study in the OP right? thelovefist posted... Squall28 posted... I just don't think the study really proves anything. That's because it doesn't. Again, look at who TC is... Close your account. Oh right my bad. Yes the study doesn't prove anything that is correct. I also don't believe what you said, " that women inherently have less aptitude in math than men." Sorry I conflated those two things together. --- "honestly the worst thing about Shaun King is how pro-cop he is" - averagejoel <cite>thelovefist posted [p:905236884] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote><cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>You have dismissed the study and are clearly against it with your childish potshots against TC for using it.</quote> Where did I dismiss the study? You do understand that I can have a low opinion of TC, express that opinion and that these thoughts are entirely independent of my opinion on the study in the OP right?</quote> <cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>I just don't think the study really proves anything.</quote> That's because it doesn't. Again, look at who TC is...</quote> Close your account.</quote> Oh right my bad. Yes the study doesn't prove anything that is correct. I also don't believe what you said, " that women inherently have less aptitude in math than men." Sorry I conflated those two things together.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 07/17/18 1:00:03 PM #65:	This is a weird study for people to be mad about --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:905237045] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>This is a weird study for people to be mad about</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_Ivory_Man 07/17/18 1:00:38 PM #66:	JACKBUTTMOMMY posted... Why would someone's gender determine their math ability? Or sex for that matter? I'm not sure a study was necessary. Basically while men and women average at the same point, men have far greater spread. This means more stupid men, as well as more smart men. This is verifiable. --- "Just because someone is killed doesn't mean they died" - Shojikan <cite>The_Ivory_Man posted [p:905237072] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...</cite> <quote>Why would someone's gender determine their math ability? Or sex for that matter? I'm not sure a study was necessary.</quote> Basically while men and women average at the same point, men have far greater spread. This means more stupid men, as well as more smart men. This is verifiable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scar the 1 07/17/18 1:07:14 PM #67:	Ah yes, the classic "sample size is too small" argument. I wonder if this is so common because it's the only statistics term that the regular CEman knows? --- Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two. <cite>scar the 1 posted [p:905237421] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>Ah yes, the classic "sample size is too small" argument. I wonder if this is so common because it's the only statistics term that the regular CEman knows?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 07/17/18 1:12:36 PM #68:	thelovefist posted... GiftedACIII posted... thelovefist posted... GiftedACIII posted... You have dismissed the study and are clearly against it with your childish potshots against TC for using it. Where did I dismiss the study? You do understand that I can have a low opinion of TC, express that opinion and that these thoughts are entirely independent of my opinion on the study in the OP right? thelovefist posted... Squall28 posted... I just don't think the study really proves anything. That's because it doesn't. Again, look at who TC is... Close your account. Oh right my bad. Yes the study doesn't prove anything that is correct. I also don't believe what you said, " that women inherently have less aptitude in math than men." Sorry I conflated those two things together. So how does this study not prove anything? It's literally just disproving the previous research on gender differences in mathematical abilities that had used the exact same methodology. lol you don't even know what you're talking about. You're just upset that TC constantly outsmarts you so you need to take idiotic potshots. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:905237685] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote><cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>You have dismissed the study and are clearly against it with your childish potshots against TC for using it.</quote> Where did I dismiss the study? You do understand that I can have a low opinion of TC, express that opinion and that these thoughts are entirely independent of my opinion on the study in the OP right?</quote> <cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>I just don't think the study really proves anything.</quote> That's because it doesn't. Again, look at who TC is...</quote> Close your account.</quote> Oh right my bad. Yes the study doesn't prove anything that is correct. I also don't believe what you said, " that women inherently have less aptitude in math than men." Sorry I conflated those two things together.</quote> So how does this study not prove anything? It's literally just disproving the previous research on gender differences in mathematical abilities that had used the exact same methodology. lol you don't even know what you're talking about. You're just upset that TC constantly outsmarts you so you need to take idiotic potshots.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
awesome999 07/17/18 1:16:53 PM #69:	I'll believe it when I see it In the real world, I mean. As long as men outnumber women in STEM, that study means nothing to me I study in a 43 men 5 women class and the 5 got in cause of quotas... --- When it's kids, it's "bullying" but if it were adults, it's stalking, harassment, assault, criminal threats and just general abuse. -Tmk <cite>awesome999 posted [p:905237876] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>I'll believe it when I see it In the real world, I mean. As long as men outnumber women in STEM, that study means nothing to me I study in a 43 men 5 women class and the 5 got in cause of quotas...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 07/17/18 1:24:34 PM #70:	awesome999 posted... I'll believe it when I see it In the real world, I mean. As long as men outnumber women in STEM, that study means nothing to me I study in a 43 men 5 women class and the 5 got in cause of quotas... Hey screw you. I got a 244 on USMLE Step 1. Ain't no quotas. --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:905238249] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>awesome999 posted...</cite> <quote>I'll believe it when I see it In the real world, I mean. As long as men outnumber women in STEM, that study means nothing to me I study in a 43 men 5 women class and the 5 got in cause of quotas...</quote> Hey screw you. I got a 244 on USMLE Step 1. Ain't no quotas.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#71	Post #71 was unavailable or deleted.
awesome999 07/17/18 1:33:29 PM #72:	Coffeebeanz posted... awesome999 posted... I'll believe it when I see it In the real world, I mean. As long as men outnumber women in STEM, that study means nothing to me I study in a 43 men 5 women class and the 5 got in cause of quotas... Hey screw you. I got a 244 on USMLE Step 1. Ain't no quotas. I'd respect you more if you called the quota thing an anecdote, which is what yours is Conflict posted... lol Sure buddy I don't see any kind of argument here, anecdote or otherwise --- When it's kids, it's "bullying" but if it were adults, it's stalking, harassment, assault, criminal threats and just general abuse. -Tmk <cite>awesome999 posted [p:905238681] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote><cite>awesome999 posted...</cite> <quote>I'll believe it when I see it In the real world, I mean. As long as men outnumber women in STEM, that study means nothing to me I study in a 43 men 5 women class and the 5 got in cause of quotas...</quote> Hey screw you. I got a 244 on USMLE Step 1. Ain't no quotas.</quote> I'd respect you more if you called the quota thing an anecdote, which is what yours is <cite>Conflict posted...</cite> <quote>lol Sure buddy</quote> I don't see any kind of argument here, anecdote or otherwise</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 07/17/18 1:41:40 PM #73:	averagejoel posted... Renault posted... all writers are women can I get a non biased study how can anything created by humans be unbiased still waiting on a response to this --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:905239096] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Renault posted...</cite> <quote>all writers are women can I get a non biased study</quote> how can anything created by humans be unbiased</quote> still waiting on a response to this</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 2:13:27 PM #74:	Squall28 posted... COVxy posted... The standard deviation in comparison to the mean doesn't give you the information you seek, and certainly wouldn't be more informative than just looking at the distributions. Why does it not? If there's a test, and the average is 70, and everyone scores within 5 points if that it doesn't mean much. Contrast that to an average of 70 but people fluctuate like 20 points. That's a test where you can differentiate high and low performers. The plot distribution gives you an overall look at the data which I generally like, but I want to pinpoint something. Simple version: the variance around the mean can be caused by many things. Essentially, this is usually a metric used for signal quality, and in fact you want the variance to be small in relation to the mean. But it's kinda nonsensical here. There's no simple answer to what you're looking for, other than there's a clear age effect across most of these measures, meaning that the variance is indeed segregating individuals on the basis of certain factors, just not gender. If you are looking for an effect where the task is too easy or too hard, pushing everyone down or up to the same performance, this is called a floor or a ceiling effect, and it is easily observable on the basis of the distribution being skewed against a boundary. You can see this in a couple of their measures, but not most, and in those that it does, the ceiling tends to be driven by age, where the task is too easy for older kids. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905240753] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>The standard deviation in comparison to the mean doesn't give you the information you seek, and certainly wouldn't be more informative than just looking at the distributions.</quote> Why does it not? If there's a test, and the average is 70, and everyone scores within 5 points if that it doesn't mean much. Contrast that to an average of 70 but people fluctuate like 20 points. That's a test where you can differentiate high and low performers. The plot distribution gives you an overall look at the data which I generally like, but I want to pinpoint something.</quote> Simple version: the variance around the mean can be caused by many things. Essentially, this is usually a metric used for signal quality, and in fact you want the variance to be small in relation to the mean. But it's kinda nonsensical here. There's no simple answer to what you're looking for, other than there's a clear age effect across most of these measures, meaning that the variance is indeed segregating individuals on the basis of certain factors, just not gender. If you are looking for an effect where the task is too easy or too hard, pushing everyone down or up to the same performance, this is called a floor or a ceiling effect, and it is easily observable on the basis of the distribution being skewed against a boundary. You can see this in a couple of their measures, but not most, and in those that it does, the ceiling tends to be driven by age, where the task is too easy for older kids.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 2:20:26 PM #75:	scar the 1 posted... Ah yes, the classic "sample size is too small" argument. I wonder if this is so common because it's the only statistics term that the regular CEman knows? To be fair, it's a nonintiutive concept that you can sample an extraordinarily small number of people in the scope of the target population and accurately estimate parameters. That said, it's clear that this is the go to: "i don't have any real criticism of the study, but I don't like it's conclusion" response. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905241104] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>Ah yes, the classic "sample size is too small" argument. I wonder if this is so common because it's the only statistics term that the regular CEman knows?</quote> To be fair, it's a nonintiutive concept that you can sample an extraordinarily small number of people in the scope of the target population and accurately estimate parameters. That said, it's clear that this is the go to: "i don't have any real criticism of the study, but I don't like it's conclusion" response.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 2:23:59 PM #76:	The_Ivory_Man posted... JACKBUTTMOMMY posted... Why would someone's gender determine their math ability? Or sex for that matter? I'm not sure a study was necessary. Basically while men and women average at the same point, men have far greater spread. This means more stupid men, as well as more smart men. This is verifiable. Is it? There's no evidence of tail effects in this study. This argument has been floating around a lot more often since Peterson spouted it. Small mean differences do not imply "whopping" differences in the tails, as he argues. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905241298] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>The_Ivory_Man posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...</cite> <quote>Why would someone's gender determine their math ability? Or sex for that matter? I'm not sure a study was necessary.</quote> Basically while men and women average at the same point, men have far greater spread. This means more stupid men, as well as more smart men. This is verifiable.</quote> Is it? There's no evidence of tail effects in this study. This argument has been floating around a lot more often since Peterson spouted it. Small mean differences do not imply "whopping" differences in the tails, as he argues.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scar the 1 07/17/18 2:48:03 PM #77:	COVxy posted... scar the 1 posted... Ah yes, the classic "sample size is too small" argument. I wonder if this is so common because it's the only statistics term that the regular CEman knows? To be fair, it's a nonintiutive concept that you can sample an extraordinarily small number of people in the scope of the target population and accurately estimate parameters. That said, it's clear that this is the go to: "i don't have any real criticism of the study, but I don't like it's conclusion" response. Yeah, a lot of statistics is non-intuitive. But people once learned the terms "mean", "standard deviation" and "sample size" and then they think they're experts. Is that the Dunning-Kruger effect, or am I thinking of something else? --- Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two. <cite>scar the 1 posted [p:905242633] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>Ah yes, the classic "sample size is too small" argument. I wonder if this is so common because it's the only statistics term that the regular CEman knows?</quote> To be fair, it's a nonintiutive concept that you can sample an extraordinarily small number of people in the scope of the target population and accurately estimate parameters. That said, it's clear that this is the go to: "i don't have any real criticism of the study, but I don't like it's conclusion" response.</quote> Yeah, a lot of statistics is non-intuitive. But people once learned the terms "mean", "standard deviation" and "sample size" and then they think they're experts. Is that the Dunning-Kruger effect, or am I thinking of something else?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 07/17/18 3:05:24 PM #78:	COVxy posted... Squall28 posted... COVxy posted... The standard deviation in comparison to the mean doesn't give you the information you seek, and certainly wouldn't be more informative than just looking at the distributions. Why does it not? If there's a test, and the average is 70, and everyone scores within 5 points if that it doesn't mean much. Contrast that to an average of 70 but people fluctuate like 20 points. That's a test where you can differentiate high and low performers. The plot distribution gives you an overall look at the data which I generally like, but I want to pinpoint something. Simple version: the variance around the mean can be caused by many things. Essentially, this is usually a metric used for signal quality, and in fact you want the variance to be small in relation to the mean. But it's kinda nonsensical here. There's no simple answer to what you're looking for, other than there's a clear age effect across most of these measures, meaning that the variance is indeed segregating individuals on the basis of certain factors, just not gender. If you are looking for an effect where the task is too easy or too hard, pushing everyone down or up to the same performance, this is called a floor or a ceiling effect, and it is easily observable on the basis of the distribution being skewed against a boundary. You can see this in a couple of their measures, but not most, and in those that it does, the ceiling tends to be driven by age, where the task is too easy for older kids. The point I'm trying to make is that harder tests do a better job at differentiating ability. If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score. The differentiator will be very silly things. In this example, it comes down to how many powers of ten the kid knows or if the kid got nervous while counting and messed up. Not sure of how good a measure of ability that is. --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:905243582] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>The standard deviation in comparison to the mean doesn't give you the information you seek, and certainly wouldn't be more informative than just looking at the distributions.</quote> Why does it not? If there's a test, and the average is 70, and everyone scores within 5 points if that it doesn't mean much. Contrast that to an average of 70 but people fluctuate like 20 points. That's a test where you can differentiate high and low performers. The plot distribution gives you an overall look at the data which I generally like, but I want to pinpoint something.</quote> Simple version: the variance around the mean can be caused by many things. Essentially, this is usually a metric used for signal quality, and in fact you want the variance to be small in relation to the mean. But it's kinda nonsensical here. There's no simple answer to what you're looking for, other than there's a clear age effect across most of these measures, meaning that the variance is indeed segregating individuals on the basis of certain factors, just not gender. If you are looking for an effect where the task is too easy or too hard, pushing everyone down or up to the same performance, this is called a floor or a ceiling effect, and it is easily observable on the basis of the distribution being skewed against a boundary. You can see this in a couple of their measures, but not most, and in those that it does, the ceiling tends to be driven by age, where the task is too easy for older kids.</quote> The point I'm trying to make is that harder tests do a better job at differentiating ability. If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score. The differentiator will be very silly things. In this example, it comes down to how many powers of ten the kid knows or if the kid got nervous while counting and messed up. Not sure of how good a measure of ability that is.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 3:14:20 PM #79:	Squall28 posted... If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score. And what would that score be? --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905244108] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score.</quote> And what would that score be?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thelovefist 07/17/18 3:16:30 PM #80:	COVxy posted... Squall28 posted... If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score. And what would that score be? Irrelevant. --- "honestly the worst thing about Shaun King is how pro-cop he is" - averagejoel <cite>thelovefist posted [p:905244257] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score.</quote> And what would that score be?</quote> Irrelevant.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 3:17:03 PM #81:	thelovefist posted... COVxy posted... Squall28 posted... If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score. And what would that score be? Irrelevant. Lol. Absolutely not irrelevant, in fact is the entire point. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905244287] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score.</quote> And what would that score be?</quote> Irrelevant.</quote> Lol. Absolutely not irrelevant, in fact is the entire point.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CreekCo 07/17/18 3:19:15 PM #82:	COVxy posted... thelovefist posted... COVxy posted... Squall28 posted... If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score. And what would that score be? Irrelevant. Lol. Absolutely not irrelevant, in fact is the entire point. Read what you wrote again, slowly. --- Triggered <cite>CreekCo posted [p:905244419] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score.</quote> And what would that score be?</quote> Irrelevant.</quote> Lol. Absolutely not irrelevant, in fact is the entire point.</quote> Read what you wrote again, slowly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 3:21:40 PM #83:	CreekCo posted... COVxy posted... thelovefist posted... COVxy posted... Squall28 posted... If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score. And what would that score be? Irrelevant. Lol. Absolutely not irrelevant, in fact is the entire point. Read what you wrote again, slowly. You can take that advice, if you'd like. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905244551] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>CreekCo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score.</quote> And what would that score be?</quote> Irrelevant.</quote> Lol. Absolutely not irrelevant, in fact is the entire point.</quote> Read what you wrote again, slowly.</quote> You can take that advice, if you'd like.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thelovefist 07/17/18 3:22:36 PM #84:	COVxy posted... CreekCo posted... COVxy posted... thelovefist posted... COVxy posted... Squall28 posted... If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score. And what would that score be? Irrelevant. Lol. Absolutely not irrelevant, in fact is the entire point. Read what you wrote again, slowly. You can take that advice, if you'd like. Do you really need to have this explained to you? You're embarrassing yourself at this point. --- "honestly the worst thing about Shaun King is how pro-cop he is" - averagejoel <cite>thelovefist posted [p:905244606] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CreekCo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>thelovefist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score.</quote> And what would that score be?</quote> Irrelevant.</quote> Lol. Absolutely not irrelevant, in fact is the entire point.</quote> Read what you wrote again, slowly.</quote> You can take that advice, if you'd like.</quote> Do you really need to have this explained to you? You're embarrassing yourself at this point.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 3:24:08 PM #85:	Sure, explain it to me. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905244690] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>Sure, explain it to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BignutzisBack 07/17/18 3:26:29 PM #86:	Jesus TC read Carl Jung already so you can follow along smh --- https://imgur.com/plA0Vg9 http://i.minus.com/iluvk8aR4mzC8.gif <cite>BignutzisBack posted [p:905244830] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>Jesus TC read Carl Jung already so you can follow along smh</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 07/17/18 3:29:48 PM #87:	COVxy posted... Squall28 posted... If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score. And what would that score be? In a class? 90% In this example, no idea. How do you measure counting ability and ability to separate dots? Only thing you can do is compare to others in the study. But I'll provide another example. You have two classes with people of all mathematical backgrounds. Make one class take a test on basic addition and subtraction. Make another take a test on Calculus 3, keeping in mine that there are people in both classes that haven't taken calculus. I gurantee you the stars in the calculus test will not outshine the ones in the simple math test. Some may even get worse scores cause they made careless errors in their math. --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:905245054] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>If you are taking an easy course, almost everyone is going to get the same score.</quote> And what would that score be?</quote> In a class? 90% In this example, no idea. How do you measure counting ability and ability to separate dots? Only thing you can do is compare to others in the study. But I'll provide another example. You have two classes with people of all mathematical backgrounds. Make one class take a test on basic addition and subtraction. Make another take a test on Calculus 3, keeping in mine that there are people in both classes that haven't taken calculus. I gurantee you the stars in the calculus test will not outshine the ones in the simple math test. Some may even get worse scores cause they made careless errors in their math.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 3:30:42 PM #88:	Squall28 posted... In a class? 90% What does a distribution of grades look if they are bunched up around 90%? --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905245112] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>In a class? 90%</quote> What does a distribution of grades look if they are bunched up around 90%?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 07/17/18 3:52:14 PM #89:	COVxy posted... Squall28 posted... In a class? 90% What does a distribution of grades look if they are bunched up around 90%? Probably normalish just like any other %. The main thing is that the distribution would be narrow. --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:905246391] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>In a class? 90%</quote> What does a distribution of grades look if they are bunched up around 90%?</quote> Probably normalish just like any other %. The main thing is that the distribution would be narrow.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WaterLink 07/17/18 3:54:29 PM #90:	https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/975/223/4bc.jpg --- No one sings like you anymore <cite>WaterLink posted [p:905246530] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/975/223/4bc.jpg</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 4:02:14 PM #91:	Squall28 posted... COVxy posted... Squall28 posted... In a class? 90% What does a distribution of grades look if they are bunched up around 90%? Probably normalish just like any other %. The main thing is that the distribution would be narrow. Your intuition is incorrect, this creates an extreme skew in the data, obvious to spot. Here's a quick example, subjects who are normally distributed around 90 with a standard deviation of 20, but scores are clipped with random error at 100, the bound. This produces data like: --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905246976] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>In a class? 90%</quote> What does a distribution of grades look if they are bunched up around 90%?</quote> Probably normalish just like any other %. The main thing is that the distribution would be narrow.</quote> Your intuition is incorrect, this creates an extreme skew in the data, obvious to spot. Here's a quick example, subjects who are normally distributed around 90 with a standard deviation of 20, but scores are clipped with random error at 100, the bound. This produces data like: </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 07/17/18 4:06:00 PM #92:	But as I said before, I think you are too caught up in the data, when my complaint was about the test used to get that data. If you said one kid was really good at counting, and that means he's going to be great at math, it's questionable. I personally always hated counting and always found ways around it whenever I could as a kid. I either made stacks of a set number, then count the stacks or some other bs. But at the same time, I was two years ahead of everyone in math and always got As. I don't think it would've been fair to say I would be bad at math because I found the act of counting tiresome. --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:905247192] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>But as I said before, I think you are too caught up in the data, when my complaint was about the test used to get that data. If you said one kid was really good at counting, and that means he's going to be great at math, it's questionable. I personally always hated counting and always found ways around it whenever I could as a kid. I either made stacks of a set number, then count the stacks or some other bs. But at the same time, I was two years ahead of everyone in math and always got As. I don't think it would've been fair to say I would be bad at math because I found the act of counting tiresome.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 07/17/18 4:08:54 PM #93:	That example you gave isn't bunched around 90%. It averages at 90. A considerable portion of your data has failing grades. --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:905247377] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>That example you gave isn't bunched around 90%. It averages at 90. A considerable portion of your data has failing grades.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 4:09:06 PM #94:	I'm saying that there's no evidence that their results are due to the test being too easy because this would cause an obvious ceiling effect if this were true, but this largely isn't the case. You can assert that the tests wouldn't be predictive of later mathematical ability, but that is an entirely different argument. One that also requires evidence (and this likely exists in the literature if you wanted to look). --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905247385] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>I'm saying that there's no evidence that their results are due to the test being too easy because this would cause an obvious ceiling effect if this were true, but this largely isn't the case. You can assert that the tests wouldn't be predictive of later mathematical ability, but that is an entirely different argument. One that also requires evidence (and this likely exists in the literature if you wanted to look).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IllegalAlien 07/17/18 4:30:17 PM #95:	Sample statistics give different information about the sample. IDK why anyone wants the variance over say the median, but w.e. --- "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." <cite>IllegalAlien posted [p:905248559] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>Sample statistics give different information about the sample. IDK why anyone wants the variance over say the median, but w.e.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 07/17/18 4:31:06 PM #96:	How would there be a ceiling effect if there isn't a good standard on what a max out score is? --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:905248612] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote>How would there be a ceiling effect if there isn't a good standard on what a max out score is?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 4:32:29 PM #97:	IllegalAlien posted... Sample statistics give different information about the sample. IDK why anyone wants the variance over say the median, but w.e. Yeah, but not more information than seeing the entire distribution. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905248687] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>IllegalAlien posted...</cite> <quote>Sample statistics give different information about the sample. IDK why anyone wants the variance over say the median, but w.e.</quote> Yeah, but not more information than seeing the entire distribution.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Squall28 07/17/18 4:34:19 PM #98:	IllegalAlien posted... Sample statistics give different information about the sample. IDK why anyone wants the variance over say the median, but w.e. Because my complaint was the ability of the test to distinguish high achievers. --- If you're going through hell, keep going. -Winston Churchill <cite>Squall28 posted [p:905248790] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>IllegalAlien posted...</cite> <quote>Sample statistics give different information about the sample. IDK why anyone wants the variance over say the median, but w.e.</quote> Because my complaint was the ability of the test to distinguish high achievers.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IllegalAlien 07/17/18 4:37:43 PM #99:	COVxy posted... IllegalAlien posted... Sample statistics give different information about the sample. IDK why anyone wants the variance over say the median, but w.e. Yeah, but not more information than seeing the entire distribution. There's literally nothing better than the distribution if it's in a space that can be visualized, so I agree. --- "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." <cite>IllegalAlien posted [p:905248996] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>IllegalAlien posted...</cite> <quote>Sample statistics give different information about the sample. IDK why anyone wants the variance over say the median, but w.e.</quote> Yeah, but not more information than seeing the entire distribution.</quote> There's literally nothing better than the distribution if it's in a space that can be visualized, so I agree.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IllegalAlien 07/17/18 4:40:56 PM #100:	Squall28 posted... IllegalAlien posted... Sample statistics give different information about the sample. IDK why anyone wants the variance over say the median, but w.e. Because my complaint was the ability of the test to distinguish high achievers. I'm going to be honest with you, I didn't even pretend to read the paper. Were the distributions similar conditioned on gender? Variance? Shape? What about not conditioned on gender? Do the scores skew more when conditioned on either gender? Did they provide this info, or just a small table. Nature/Science is very terse and the absolute top for academic publications so it could be the case that data was omitted for the appendices. Also very possible that a previous, longer, study by the same group is published. --- "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." <cite>IllegalAlien posted [p:905249188] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>IllegalAlien posted...</cite> <quote>Sample statistics give different information about the sample. IDK why anyone wants the variance over say the median, but w.e.</quote> Because my complaint was the ability of the test to distinguish high achievers.</quote> I'm going to be honest with you, I didn't even pretend to read the paper. Were the distributions similar conditioned on gender? Variance? Shape? What about not conditioned on gender? Do the scores skew more when conditioned on either gender? Did they provide this info, or just a small table. Nature/Science is very terse and the absolute top for academic publications so it could be the case that data was omitted for the appendices. Also very possible that a previous, longer, study by the same group is published.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/17/18 4:51:52 PM #101:	Squall28 posted... How would there be a ceiling effect if there isn't a good standard on what a max out score is? Many of them have definitive boundaries, and if they didn't there would be an effective boundary. If a test score doesn't discriminate between high performers, you get a heavy skew, because by definition all high performers have a similar score. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905249797] in No intrins... [t:76815268]...</cite> <quote><cite>Squall28 posted...</cite> <quote>How would there be a ceiling effect if there isn't a good standard on what a max out score is?</quote> Many of them have definitive boundaries, and if they didn't there would be an effective boundary. If a test score doesn't discriminate between high performers, you get a heavy skew, because by definition all high performers have a similar score.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > No intrinsic gender differences in children's mathematical abilities (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > No intrinsic gender differences in children's mathematical abilities