The differences in the math achievement and subsequent science literacy between males and females is so small when compared to the results; the scientific ignorance of the general public, displayed on the subjects of climate change and evolution.

All this shows is that sometimes scientists, constrained by their beliefs in their ivory towers, can become totally disconnected from reality.

One of the problems with the typical reporting of statistical differences between groups of people is the tendency to declarations like yours: that everyone within a group is defined by that difference.

Regardless, you don’t present any evidence for your assertion, and you’re perilously close to troll territory.

Nobody agrees on that, except Patricia. Patricia’s only argument is that the paper does not subscribe to her point of view, and therefore must be propaganda. That is an empty claim that reeks of throwing with mud.

Science is aimed to be objective, clear, and properly conducted. The Stoet/Geary paper attacks a popular theory using logic and reasoning (not subjective arguments) and rejects the stereotype treat explanation of the gender gap in mathematics. The Fields Medal is probably just one example of the enormity of the underrepresentation of women. Ultimately, we need to explain of why this is, or don’t we??? If you think it is because of discrimination of women, you need to come up with some arguments. I think nobody really buys that in today’s day and age.

Patricia: If you think the answer is so “screamingly obvious”, it is unlikely that researchers would seriously debate this issue, unless you believe that there is a mass conspiracy against all women.

I honestly don’t know how anyone can argue on behalf of a video that includes something like that. Especially when it goes on to say “Only science can help us find out why is the case!” The answer to the real question in there (why aren’t females receiving these tops awards) is so screamingly obvious that only a man hellbent on maintaining male domination in science, mathematics, and awards determination would pose it.

Ahem. Perhaps that last sentence was a bit over the line. But again: seriously?!?!

And, as to your last point, this particular science is NOT about being open to changing one’s beliefs. This is about finding ways to reinforce and/or validate beliefs that science has shown to be false and sexist (racist, elitist, whatever). Since their article still hasn’t been released, I can’t speak to its quality; however, I feel wholly confident after watching this travesty of a “scientific” video that these folks are light years from objectivity in their research.

Perhaps they just like to be out of step with the zeitgeist in order to garner attention. And by zeitgeist I mean the inexorable decline of male hegemony of STEM.

But we at least agree that it’s propaganda!

The general public is, naturally, eager for clear research findings with straight answers for problems, and researchers may find themselves in the position to be pressured to provide such solutions. This is a problem with the publication process. Journals are pressured to publish “sexy” (excitingly appealing) articles. Researchers, in turn, are pressured to couch their findings in a “sexy story” that will get them published. Although I agree that published research findings should be couched in the authors’ interpretation of their significance, the sad truth is that the pressure to “publish or perish” can unfortunately lead to loss of objectivity. I am not making claims that the authors of this new paper or the previous papers have lost their objectivity.

Re: Patricia Logan-Greene’s comment: I don’t see how the video is “terribly one-sided” if the message is, “hey wait a minute, we may not have the answer to this question yet, don’t stop looking.” Do you expect them to devote equal time to the opposite of their point (“the answer was found”)? Perhaps after this has been in press, they can link to a rebuttal video.

Also, I thought science is about being open-minded to changing your beliefs with the gaining of new information. The authors mentioned in the video provide a new perspective (based on findings) on an important issue. Their message is no more (but possibly less) propaganda than the vast majority of research publications on any topic.

But seriously, Stoet and Geary’s challenge to stereotype threat and the methodology of other researchers may be entirely legit–it’s just hard to evaluate or discuss since the paper hasn’t been published yet. There are other interesting ideas about the gender gap hitting the popular press. I’ve seen different types of cultural influences mentioned (and sometimes blended into the concept of stereotype threat) in coverage of a couple big science stories this year. So it isn’t clear to me that an over-emphasis on stereotype threat is a big problem (I’m willing to entertain it, but I’m not persuaded by the video).

Geary’s previous work and his popular books on evolutionary psychology give me the impression that he’s sympathetic to the Laurence Summers position. The biological hypothesis makes women scientists anxious because of a history of popular belief in women’s intellectual inferiority, and a sense that the general public still leans toward that belief, at least for mathy fields. And yeah, I can’t approach that topic with anything like pure “scientific objectivity,” but I don’t think that anyone can.