Unfortunately the article does not mention the standard deviation of the distribution of mathematical ability after controlling for other factors. As mentioned here: <a href="http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm</a>, Larry Summers got in a lot of trouble at Harvard for making this assertion:<p>"It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined."<p>Is that assertion backed up by evidence? And, if true, is making this distinction useful in informing public policy and shaping our culture? In a fight between naturalistic and moral fallacies, which wins?
I think it's generally accepted that if you take a sampling of average men and average women, they will both perform at similar levels in regards to mathematics.<p>However, I believe the differences between men and women in mathematical thinking, should they exist, will only be apparent when it comes to dealing with the levels of math that deal with abstractions upon abstractions and so on.<p>In my personal experience, I've noticed that 90%+ of (American) women are just not interested in formal systems, be it predicate logic, computer science, pure mathematics, etc. I'm inclined to believe women are just wired to prefer more practical disciplines, but I think a compelling argument can be made for either view. I suspect the answer probably lies somewhere in between.
Autism rates are 3 times more likely in males than females, which I see as an extreme symptom of a more general trait. This is what I chalk up the math and science gender gap to, though I have absolutely no scientific data to back that up.
The journal article as pdf <a href="http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf</a>
I wish the article said what <i>kind</i> of math they tested for. There's a world of difference between being good at multiplication and being good at proving P≠NP.
God, really, I hope this turns out to be right. If our brains are fundamentally different, we (men and women) are doomed to never really understand each other, which I find totally depressing.
Like a wise person once said: <i>Interest is aptitude</i><p>All of the nature/nurture constructs built around males to interest them in the <i>autistic endeavors</i> like math, physics, computer science are very different for females. It's not that woman can't do math, rather it's that they choose not to.
I like that researchers are drifting away from attempts at neurological gender difference explanations, and towards a gestalt of social conditioning.
I personally do not feel that there is a correlation between sex and maths skills. Its the stereotypes that result in girls not actively pursuing maths related courses. If provided the right education and motivation, anyone can be good at any subject. In India, for example, where the students have no choice but to learn predefined syllabus, girls do pretty well in Maths.