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?