Debunking the single-sex ed cranks
Debunking the single-sex ed cranks
Science has recently published a study you might find of interest. It's a debunking of the recent fad of using neuroscientific and psychological sex differences "research" to promote single sex education.
i need to be at work to have access to the full article. But why would anyone (other than CP ijots) think that there is anything to be gained in "single sex" education.
And i'm always curious how much of the "differences" are cultural and how much biological. I'm sure it's more biology than I want to admit, but I'm just waiting for these kinds of studies to start saying "women are better at languages, therefore they should not be in science".
thanks, i'll read teh actual article tomorrow.
It's based on a combination of extravagant overgeneralizations and misinterpretations of psych studies mixed with "learning styles" woo. A good place to follow the adventures of these cranks is at Mark Liberman's "language and gender" postings on Language Log. In fact, I just finished reading Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender, which is a good book on this, though some of the stuff she dismantles is a bit old hat (to me at least). Much of the Mars/Venus bunk peddled in the popular media wouldn't pass a neuroscience 101 course.
Yeah... There are some very real cultural issues in education, like endless studies that show we push boys to "figure out" answers, and tell girls "it's ok, it was a good try". and that even knowing you do it, you will statistically call on men 2/3 of the time in a highscool or university class.
but that's quite different than thinking that "women and men are biologically different (in the head) enough to justify different teaching styles, much less separate education streams.
Damned WOO period. can we just stop all of it now? ;-)
Unfortunately not. This stuff sells, big time. It only makes it worse that women are some of the worst offenders in promoting this nonsense. Because, as we all know, it's not sexist if a woman says it!
women use 25,000 words, and men say "uugh", and grunt.
yeah.....
Men's brains are biologically programied to fail ever 23 seconds if they don't have a sexual thought!
And don't forget, you evolved to like pink!
BERRIES?????????????????????
oh for fuck's sake.
Hey, I warned you it wouldn't pass a 101 course.
Yeah, but berries????
couldn't we at least have said somethign exciting like "it helps us see teh color of our lover's whowho to know when he's happy to see us? thus making more babies and survigin better???
I lived for a while in Australia and taught high school maths. The technical high schools were all single sex and they tried single sex classes in some of the sciences in the regular high schools. The girls seemed to do better in the girls only classes but it seemed a social thing where they did not want to compete against the boys. The boys also seemed to ask more questions when no girls were present, I suppose they didnt want to look stupid in front of the girls.
Or, thanks to Fora, you can save yourself some reading:
hahaha "It does take a bit longer than 45 minutes to tear down the scientific patriarchy, especially if you have to consider rhetoric and provide a few laughs". :-)
I am quite surprised (superficially at least) that Pinker is, or at least stated something she quoted to suggest he is, an advocate of "two brains" logic.
He's nowhere near as bad as the others, but he does talk nonsense on that front sometimes.
But I have a crush on his writing. he can't do that!
course, he does seem a bit the arrogant jackass when you listen to him in interviews. Still anyone who challenges Chomsky on the front lines gets a bit of my faith. ;-)
pouts. all my heros are belonging to us".
Pinker is much more in his element when it comes to linguistics, and he is indeed a good writer. Best to keep your heroes at arm's length -- almost everyone has gotten into some unsavory bullshit at some point in their lives. Reminds me of when I came across Hans Eysenck's involvement in racialist garbage and the tobacco industry.
Suck a poos, huh?
As the cliche goes, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Day I found out my favorite poet/singer had dumped his 30 year marriage for a (seriously) 19 or 20 year old girl, i cried. Here I was, hoping just one person would "keep the faith".
Seriously, though, scientists do strange things as they move out of the world of science and into the real day to day world of life.
Indeed, though I think nuttery in the scientific community is just more apparent because scientists are presumed to have some kind of magical powers of objectivity. Which ties nicely back to the OP -- "We would never rely on sexist stereotyping in our research, because we're objective scientists and ScienceTM isn't PC!"
Some more disappointment for ya: Eliot vs. Pinker.
Oh no! pouts. maybe i can just stick my fingers in my ears and close my eyes. Pinker is not sexist! heh
Like I said, you can at least take comfort in the fact that he is far from the worst offender.
Yeah, well, i just said to a good friend that I'm tired of the OWS group cause they are well-educated middle class "youth" by and large, vs., the people who really need help, and he said "You cannot take comfort or make excuses just cause you are better off then someone else". (I disagree, by teh way), but it does seem to make your argument that he's "not the worst offender" a bit hollow. :_)
I'm frenchist. is that something? damn frogs.
The ACLU is working against this and they've kindly provided a de-paywalled copy of the original paper.