What do you think about sexist/racist studies being done?

[jooxis]

Sometimes people conduct studies to see whether a certain race is more intelligent than others, whether women are inferior/superior to men in certain fields, etc... and they often come to conclusions that someone is better at something or overall smarter. Like these studies for example

Women and gay men are the worst drivers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574402/Women-and-gay-men-are-worst-drivers.html)

Study claims IQ differences 50% genetic (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-43536.html)

Do you find it offensive or do you accept it as reality?
Is it 'right' to question these things and conduct studies?
Are you sceptical that those kinds of studies are almost always biased, obviously favoring the white men who conduct them?
Do you think these kinds of studies do more harm than good, considering that the already existing racial/sexist/homophobic tension within human communities does not need to be fueled even more by "science"?

[Doddibot]

Showing that there's a difference between people isn't offensive. I know there are people smarter, or stronger, or richer than I am. It's certainly acceptable to investigate these differences between people and groups. It's not acceptable to just assume these differences exist, and not acceptable to just assume these differences don't exist (and certainly not acceptable to prohibit investigating those differences for political reasons)

What's not acceptable, however, is saying that these differences make certain people superior. For example, if men are smarter than women, that doesn't mean women are inferior. Men are women aren't the same, we already can see this, but the key point is those differences just don't matter.

Prejudice and bigotry have to be fought with arguments that DON'T depend on a lack of differences. Because a study could come out tomorrow showing that, for example, heterosexual, middle-class, white men are better at everything when compared to anyone else. But that doesn't mean they're better human beings.

[fakepeeps7]

It's reality. We are different. I agree with what Doddibot said.

I think it would be more offensive to just assume differences are there rather than go further and investigate whether those assumptions are true or not. Will there be bias? Probably. But that's true in everything. And if the study is done properly, it shouldn't matter.

Problem is, people sometimes choose to get offended. I can recall a story about a study recently that found a correlation between education level and whether a woman kept her maiden name (more education meant she was more likely to do so). Women in the comments section were getting all pissed off and offended, thinking that the study was telling them they were uneducated (and therefore stupid) because they took their husband's name... when, really, all the study did was look at and report the numbers. It just so happened that women with less education more often took their husband's name. So what? From some of the comments on the story, you would've thought that the researchers had concluded that women who changed their names were certifiable morons... when all the researchers did was report on a statistic.

[Mistermook]

Do you find it offensive or do you accept it as reality?
It depends. Offensive people are offensive. Reality is reality. Sometimes reality is offensive.
Is it 'right' to question these things and conduct studies?
It's always "right" in the most expansive sense to question things. Some people are asses and idiots for questioning things, and some "studies" aren't much better than scholarly opportunities for bigotry though.
Are you skeptical that those kinds of studies are almost always biased, obviously favoring the white men who conduct them?
No, because some studies are obviously conducted by people other than white men. Very few people conduct studies that conclusively prove that they themselves are slow, inferior examples of humanity though. That's completely apart from raw data though. Even the most flawed, offensive, completely wrong-headed study imaginable tells you something.
Do you think these kinds of studies do more harm than good, considering that the already existing racial/sexist/homophobic tension within human communities does not need to be fueled even more by "science"?
Science does harm when people choose to do harm with it. Did the nuclear bomb do more harm than good? I get that you're headed somewhere with your questions, but on some level I can't help but think that offensive people will find ways to be offensive and there's nothing about science that suggests that scientists are nice people (nor not nice people, for that matter.) Bad people are bad, and good things can be picked up by assholes and be used to excuse bad behavior. On a philosophical level I don't have a problem with people asking questions, even offensive questions, ever. I reserve the right to think bad things about people who ask offensive questions, but asking a question and looking for an answer, even a poorly phrased, offensive, biased and based on bad assumptions or bad data, is just fundamentally something I support. Now, I don't think that's something that I reserve as a right or anything - I'm not saying I think we should fund grants for people with nonsense science, or even offensive non-nonsense science, with public funds or anything.

[RoseCity]

The article about the women and gay men drivers was interesting because the headline says they are the worst drivers and then if I read the text correctly it says that they are the worst navigators meaning I guess get lost more frequently. In the study the test subjects had to swim through an underwater maze. So why did the Telegraph transform that into a headline about driving a car? Do they have some agenda against women?
I would always ask who funded the study and how they conducted it. If they're making some sweeping judgment based on how only 140 people perform, I wouldn't place much value on the information.

[tizerist]

Do you
Is it 'right'
Are you sceptical
Do you think
No, I think you are probably just too angry about everything tbh.
Did a white guy just dump you by any chance? ;)

[jooxis]

tizerist I'm not angry about anything - I merely asked questions I'm interested in. I didn't even take a position of being for or against it, as a matter of fact.

[fragglerocks]

No, I think you are probably just too angry about everything tbh.
Did a white guy just dump you by any chance? ;)

That is completely uncalled for. This is a debate board, not an insult board.

Jooxis opened a thread that has has a relevant & current topic.

I suggest you take your sexist attitude elsewhere. Preferably towards the page containing the debate guidelines: http://modthesims.info/announcement.php?f=575&announcementid=140 .

[ivan17]

Sometimes people conduct studies to see whether a certain race is more intelligent than others, whether women are inferior/superior to men in certain fields, etc... and they often come to conclusions that someone is better at something or overall smarter. Like these studies for example

Women and gay men are the worst drivers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574402/Women-and-gay-men-are-worst-drivers.html)

Study claims IQ differences 50% genetic (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-43536.html)

Do you find it offensive or do you accept it as reality?
Is it 'right' to question these things and conduct studies?
Are you sceptical that those kinds of studies are almost always biased, obviously favoring the white men who conduct them?
Do you think these kinds of studies do more harm than good, considering that the already existing racial/sexist/homophobic tension within human communities does not need to be fueled even more by "science"?

I think that this is not science and that is stupid.
Existing racial/sexist/homophobic tensions will always be and people like to gossip around. Many males are saying that blonde women are stupid and I think that is apsurd.
Although I don't like gays, there are and always will be prejudices against individuals.

[fakepeeps7]

Although I don't like gays, there are and always will be prejudices against individuals.

WTF? LOL...

Is that supposed to make sense?

[fakepeeps7]

So what is a way we find out if blond women are, in fact, stupid? We do a study. Find the statistics on blond women and their I.Q. rates. Find out their education levels, and the kind of jobs they hold, etc.. The study may be offensive, but its the ONLY way to disprove that statement.

Considering the number of highly educated women in Scandinavia, I kind of doubt the "dumb blonde" idea would hold up under scientific scrutiny.

[fragglerocks]

I think that this is not science and that is stupid.
Existing racial/sexist/homophobic tensions will always be and people like to gossip around.

But why will existing racial/sexual/homophobic tensions always be? Have they increased or decreased at certain times in history and why? What makes a woman's brain different than a man's? Are people of different races biologically programmed for certain behaviors? Can we change these things?

These are questions that can be answered by doing these kinds of studies. Science has many definitions, but one is "knowledge gained by systematic studies" and this is what the op was referring to. Whether we agree with them or not, or find them offensive, most scientists tend to usually stick to the facts.

Many males are saying that blonde women are stupid and I think that is absurd.
Although I don't like gays, there are and always will be prejudices against individuals.

So what is a way we find out if blond women are, in fact, stupid? We do a study. Find the statistics on blond women and their I.Q. rates. Find out their education levels, and the kind of jobs they hold, etc.. The study may be offensive, but its the ONLY way to disprove that statement.

[Xunixeon]

Even women who dye their hair blonde are not stupid. It's rednecks that get drunk off moonshine. j/k

[ivan17]

WTF? LOL...

Is that supposed to make sense?

Here, if you say to someone that he/she is gay, it is insult.
It is also shame for parents if their child is gay.
It is also shame, if their daughter lost virginity and when everyone know that.

People will always have prejudices.

And I think that such science is s**t. They can't pronounce that e.g. all blonde females are stupid just based on 50 examples... and such.

[fragglerocks]

Considering the number of highly educated women in Scandinavia, I kind of doubt the "dumb blonde" idea would hold up under scientific scrutiny.

Haha yeah I suppose you are right about that one. I think the majority of scientific studies these days could be time spent on more important things. But that is just my opinion. Studies that promote one sex over the other, or one race over the other produce stereotyping if the final conclusion is not drawn up in a precise manner.

[grumpy_otter]

Sometimes people conduct studies to see whether a certain race is more intelligent than others, whether women are inferior/superior to men in certain fields, etc... and they often come to conclusions that someone is better at something or overall smarter. Like these studies for example

Women and gay men are the worst drivers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574402/Women-and-gay-men-are-worst-drivers.html)

Study claims IQ differences 50% genetic (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-43536.html)

Do you find it offensive or do you accept it as reality?
Is it 'right' to question these things and conduct studies?
Are you sceptical that those kinds of studies are almost always biased, obviously favoring the white men who conduct them?
Do you think these kinds of studies do more harm than good, considering that the already existing racial/sexist/homophobic tension within human communities does not need to be fueled even more by "science"?

Those two articles are different sides of the spectrum. The driving article was not a report on driving tests--it was a test of "navigation and spatial awareness." The newspaper chose that headline to be inflammatory and sell papers. And did you notice they didn't even include the name of the study? Based on the description, sounds to me like the headline could just have easily been "Men are better at video games." It's a silly article--I'd like to read about the study in an academic journal.

Now the second is presented more objectively, and is likely to be inflammatory for a different reason. Nobody wants to think their race is dumber than somebody else's. But I don't think the difference is racial at all--it is based on gene pools. If you put a group of 1000 people with IQs of 150 on one island, and a group of 1000 people with IQs of 75 on another island, then come back in 1000 years, the average IQ of the high IQ island will be higher than that of the other. It doesn't matter what race the people are--what matters is who they breed with.

The article said that "sub-Saharan Africa" has the lowest IQ. I would argue that has nothing to do with being black, but is based on the groups that live in that area--though I don't pretend to understand exactly why.

Correlation does not imply causation--ie, you are not smart because you are Asian--you are smart AND you are Asian.

But I am thinking of more and more questions--guess I have to track down the original paper.

EDIT: Wow. Found it. It is a survey of 30 years of studies done, and the basic question being asked is "Is IQ a function of genetics or culture?" And of course, race is a component of genetics.

It's dense and complex, but I may have to rethik my island scenario. Seems to be something called "regression to the mean" that might contradict me. And there does seem to be a racial component--but why I am not sure. But I found this that made me think "Holy shit!"

On average, Black babies are born a week earlier than White babies, yet they are more mature as measured by pulmonary function, amniotic fluid, and bone development. In the United States, 51% of Black children have been born by week 39 of pregnancy compared with 33% of White children. . . After birth, Black babies continue to mature faster, on average, than White babies, whereas East Asian babies average an even slower rate. X-rays show a
faster rate of average bone growth in Black children than in White children, and a faster rate in White children than in East Asian children

It's pretty interesting:

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

Another Edit: Section 11, which starts on page 265, makes sense to me, and is the reason for the differences, I think.

[jooxis]

And of course, race is a component of culture.


Where did you get this?
I don't see how race is a component of culture unless you're looking at it from some perspective I'm not aware of... the article itself tries to make it "clear" that racial differences in IQ are NOT due to culture, but due to race itself. (the adopted children example and a few other paragraphs address it)

Anyway, I don't know. I wouldn't want to prohibit any research in the name of equality, but I do see issues with it. We know old people have weakened learning abilities, it's simply true. It's not pleasant to know, especially if you're an old person, but it's the harsh reality.

Doddibot said being smarter does not make someone superior - I don't think I can agree with that. Maybe you don't view it that way - and that's good - and maybe I don't view it that way either - but an overwhelming majority must probably think so. Intelligence is highly valued and it's always insulting for an individual if someone suggests that he lacks it.

And for society to accept the fact that someone's low intelligence is due to their race or gender, it brings out all sorts of stereotypes and will make many people feel miserable. Maybe I'm wrong at predicting, though. We all would like the think that differences between us are individual-based. No one wants to hear "it's okay you failed the math exam, it's probably because you're black - you have a disadvantage and it's not your fault"

[grumpy_otter]

Where did you get this?
I don't see how race is a component of culture unless you're looking at it from some perspective I'm not aware of... the article itself tries to make it "clear" that racial differences in IQ are NOT due to culture, but due to race itself. (the adopted children example and a few other paragraphs address it)

Thanks for catching that! :) I wrote exactly the opposite of what I meant. I edited it.

And for society to accept the fact that someone's low intelligence is due to their race or gender, it brings out all sorts of stereotypes and will make many people feel miserable. Maybe I'm wrong at predicting, though. We all would like the think that differences between us are individual-based. No one wants to hear "it's okay you failed the math exam, it's probably because you're black - you have a disadvantage and it's not your fault"

That's what the article's conclusion stated, pretty much. Overall, we must value the individual.

But I think it is good to study and try to understand these things--that's why I pointed out section 11--the differences in how evolution would select for certain traits makes sense to me. And if we understand that there is a genetic reason why black man are better basketball players, then I think that's cool.

[Doddibot]

Doddibot said being smarter does not make someone superior - I don't think I can agree with that. Maybe you don't view it that way - and that's good - and maybe I don't view it that way either - but an overwhelming majority must probably think so. Intelligence is highly valued and it's always insulting for an individual if someone suggests that he lacks it.
Perhaps the majority view intelligence as a factor in superiority, but few view it as the only one.

And besides, one of the key things wrong with 'prejudice' is just that: pre-judging. People aren't looking at your intelligence and making a judgment, they're looking at some other trait like your age, gender or skin colour and making a judgment based on that. When we all know that you can't use statistics to reliably judge an individual.

So it's not really a problem if studies show, say, that women are better communicators than men. It's a problem if people automatically assume that a given man can't communicate as well as a given woman, without actually assessing individual ability.

[RoseCity]

It just occurred to me that statistical studies are 'make work' for social scientists and psychologists. And sometimes they're funded by someone with an agenda eg to prove that white people are smarter, and, miraculously, they seem to always discover what they believed all along.
I just heard a story on the radio (This American Life) that 75% of the studies of whether cell phones are harmful that were funded by the cell phone industry found that they aren't harmful. Of the studies that weren't funded by the industry, it was the opposite - 75% found they were harmful.

[Elyasis]

Only if you use them while driving. That goes for Blackberries as well.


As far as the topic is concerned, I think that as long as the studies are done objectively than it's no big deal. The problem then becomes, how do you find a completely objective person?

[fragglerocks]

You don't, but I think that is the point. Why would we need to study human nature if everybody were objective?

[RoseCity]

I'm sorry to go off topic again, but just wanted to clarify that the cell phone studies were about the effects of microwaves on the brain.

[Elyasis]

The level of radiation is non lethal in most cases. The cases where a cellphone user got brain cancer also had other factors involved. Living next to a waste treatment facility or a cell tower, for instance.

[grumpy_otter]

Perhaps the majority view intelligence as a factor in superiority, but few view it as the only one.

And besides, one of the key things wrong with 'prejudice' is just that: pre-judging. People aren't looking at your intelligence and making a judgment, they're looking at some other trait like your age, gender or skin colour and making a judgment based on that. When we all know that you can't use statistics to reliably judge an individual.

So it's not really a problem if studies show, say, that women are better communicators than men. It's a problem if people automatically assume that a given man can't communicate as well as a given woman, without actually assessing individual ability.

That's an excellent point, and I think gets to the crux of what jooxis pointed out in the first post. (And if you look at that newspaper article it's a perfect example). It's not the studies that are the problem usually, it's the interpretation. That newspaper article was just trying to stir up trouble--not present a balanced viewpoint of a study.

[jooxis]

We can't deny physical differences among races and genders - but the whole idea being promoted by the anti-racist pro-tolerance crowd is that "it doesn't matter that we look different, because inside we're all the same". But studies that suggest that it isn't the case, somewhat shatter that whole idea, don't they?

I'm just thinking about it. I have read a study claiming black people are more likely to be violent, because of their higher testosterone level (which is apparently responsible for violent behavior). Don't really know what to make of the study, but I want to use it as an example. Theoretically if we were to accept this as a fact, then should all those people whining about there being a disproportionately large number of black people in US jails just shut up? If you are biologically predestined to be more violent, it should be expected that statistically you end up more often in jail, right?

If women and minorities tend to be less intelligent than white men, should they all quit whining that they aren't holding as many high-ranking job positions? America isn't even ready for a female president, is this because people are convinced that women are less capable of handling given situations?

And then there's the fact that most studies being done have some sort of agenda behind them. How objective can they be, anyway?

[fakepeeps7]

The level of radiation is non lethal in most cases. The cases where a cellphone user got brain cancer also had other factors involved. Living next to a waste treatment facility or a cell tower, for instance.

Wouldn't that suggest that cellphones are at least indirectly responsible, then? We wouldn't need cell towers if not for the phones...

[grumpy_otter]

I'm just thinking about it. I have read a study claiming black people are more likely to be violent, because of their higher testosterone level (which is apparently responsible for violent behavior). Don't really know what to make of the study, but I want to use it as an example. Theoretically if we were to accept this as a fact, then should all those people whining about there being a disproportionately large number of black people in US jails just shut up? If you are biologically predestined to be more violent, it should be expected that statistically you end up more often in jail, right?


That may be part of it--but back when I studied law we looked at some interesting statistics. Take three men who have committed identical crimes--one is Latino, one black, and one white. The white guy will get the shortest sentence, while the Latino will get the longest.

So while there may be a genetic component, there is still a racist component that we need to work on. And we are, I think. But knowledge in itself is not dangerous--it's how we perceive it and use it that can be bad.

[RoseCity]

We can't deny physical differences among races and genders - but the whole idea being promoted by the anti-racist pro-tolerance crowd is that "it doesn't matter that we look different, because inside we're all the same". But studies that suggest that it isn't the case, somewhat shatter that whole idea, don't they?

I'm just thinking about it. I have read a study claiming black people are more likely to be violent, because of their higher testosterone level (which is apparently responsible for violent behavior). Don't really know what to make of the study, but I want to use it as an example.

There are variable differences in the appearance of the races - by that I mean you can make generalizations about how a 'race' looks. But there will be plenty of individuals who don't fit the stereotype. There is no real basis for race - we are all the same species and we are all the same inside. I think the same applies to gender. As for black men having more testosterone, I don't think that's true.<http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/7/2519>

[pinkmonkey]

There are variable differences in the appearance of the races - by that I mean you can make generalizations about how a 'race' looks. But there will be plenty of individuals who don't fit the stereotype. There is no real basis for race - we are all the same species and we are all the same inside. I think the same applies to gender. As for black men having more testosterone, I don't think that's true.<http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/7/2519>
Thank-you Rose! :up: If we all intermarried, these racial groups that we've separated ourselves into would cease to exist.

[fakepeeps7]

Did anyone see the recent news stories about Neanderthals and how they must have intermarried into the "human" population? Apparently, a lot of non-Africans are running around with bits of Neanderthal DNA. I find that kind of ironic, considering how non-Africans (i.e., whites) have treated Africans (i.e., blacks) over the centuries. If this research is to be believed, Africans are more purely "human" (Homo sapiens) than the rest of us!

I love how science has the potential to make us sit back and say, "Oops." :lol:

In any case, I think it's pretty interesting. And so are the implications. But if scientists had to stop doing "racist" studies, they might never find things like this out!

[Oaktree]

Sometimes people conduct studies to see whether a certain race is more intelligent than others, whether women are inferior/superior to men in certain fields, etc... and they often come to conclusions that someone is better at something or overall smarter. Like these studies for example

Women and gay men are the worst drivers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574402/Women-and-gay-men-are-worst-drivers.html)

Study claims IQ differences 50% genetic (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-43536.html)

Do you find it offensive or do you accept it as reality?
Is it 'right' to question these things and conduct studies?
Are you sceptical that those kinds of studies are almost always biased, obviously favoring the white men who conduct them?
Do you think these kinds of studies do more harm than good, considering that the already existing racial/sexist/homophobic tension within human communities does not need to be fueled even more by "science"?

If it is truth, I don't think people should be offended about it. Women and some gay men truly are worse at spacial processing because the masculine brain has evolved to have better spacial awareness. Women tend to be better at communication skills. There are other differences between the two that are scientifically proven. If it turns out that the studies were rigged, then one can complain that the intent was sexist or racist, but the facts of nature cannot be sexist or racist.

Did anyone see the recent news stories about Neanderthals and how they must have intermarried into the "human" population? Apparently, a lot of non-Africans are running around with bits of Neanderthal DNA. I find that kind of ironic, considering how non-Africans (i.e., whites) have treated Africans (i.e., blacks) over the centuries. If this research is to be believed, Africans are more purely "human" (Homo sapiens) than the rest of us!

I love how science has the potential to make us sit back and say, "Oops." :lol:

In any case, I think it's pretty interesting. And so are the implications. But if scientists had to stop doing "racist" studies, they might never find things like this out!

From what I had heard, Neanderthals had not interbred with humans, that the idea was a silly rumor propagated by unscientific media. Do you have a scientific study on this?

[fakepeeps7]

From what I had heard, Neanderthals had not interbred with humans, that the idea was a silly rumor propagated by unscientific media. Do you have a scientific study on this?

This was recent; it only came out in the last week or so. Here's a source (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710).

[el_flel]

I remember having this discussion when I was doing my Psychology A-level. Our teacher mentioned a study that I think was real that was talking about black Africans being really good long distance runners, something to do with the conditions that they are brought up in leads them to have really good stamina which means they can run for longer - it was 6/7 years ago so my memory is a little fuzzy but I'm pretty sure that is the gist of it. Our teacher then asked if we thought that was racist and quite a lot of people in the class said it was. I was kind of confused by that because I didn't see it as racist at all because it merely seemed to be an objective observation.

I really don't see a problem with research like this so long as it is objective and is just pointing out differences. Obviously if researchers have got an agenda or are biased then there is a chance that is going to affect the validity of their findings, but it is for those reasons that we have peer-reviewed journals. I guess opinions on this differ because people seem to have different definitions of what constitutes racism/sexism. Humans are a curious species, we like to know everything we can ourselves and often it is useful.

I've read research that states that when heterosexual males give directions they generally do so in terms of N-S-E-W, but when women and homosexual males do it they generally use landmarks. I guess that sort of links in to the posts above about spatial awareness. I'm ok with maps but terrible in 'the real world'. I get confused wondering around my home town and I've lived there my entire life!

[Neerie]

If it is truth, I don't think people should be offended about it. Women and some gay men truly are worse at spacial processing because the masculine brain has evolved to have better spacial awareness. Women tend to be better at communication skills. There are other differences between the two that are scientifically proven. If it turns out that the studies were rigged, then one can complain that the intent was sexist or racist, but the facts of nature cannot be sexist or racist.

I have absolutely no problem with studies simply stating observable and measurable evidence. There's no racism or sexism when the results of a well done study points out to a certain result. The problem lies when people misenterpret or mislable the results of the studies.

To take the example mentionned, women and gay men might not be as good as straight men when it comes to spacial awareness and navigation, but that doesn't mean they are worst drivers, since most people consider bad driving as not abiding with the driving laws and being dangerous. At best it just means that they are more likely to get lost when placed in an unfamiliar environment.

[Mistermook]

Data doesn't suggest causes a lot of the time, but people certainly do.

[jooxis]

Data doesn't suggest causes a lot of the time, but people certainly do.

Yeah that's the other thing. I will never accept anything a study proves as "fact" if they don't come up with a logical detailed explanation for it. Otherwise, it could well be other factors (rather than biological ones) that are at play.

"Women are worse than men at math statistically but we don't know why, have no explanation, so it's probably because women might be less biologically capable of doing math" isn't really good enough.

[fragglerocks]

Yeah that's the other thing. I will never accept anything a study proves as "fact" if they don't come up with a logical detailed explanation for it. Otherwise, it could well be other factors (rather than biological ones) that are at play.

"Women are worse than men at math statistically but we don't know why, have no explanation, so it's probably because women might be less biologically capable of doing math" isn't really good enough.

That doesn't make the studies useless. Human beings have known they couldn't breathe underwater for a long time. There certainly was a long period of time where we didn't know why.

There doesn't have to be a known cause for us to see the effects and study them.

[Oaktree]

I have absolutely no problem with studies simply stating observable and measurable evidence. There's no racism or sexism when the results of a well done study points out to a certain result. The problem lies when people misenterpret or mislable the results of the studies.

To take the example mentionned, women and gay men might not be as good as straight men when it comes to spacial awareness and navigation, but that doesn't mean they are worst drivers, since most people consider bad driving as not abiding with the driving laws and being dangerous. At best it just means that they are more likely to get lost when placed in an unfamiliar environment.

I agree; that's why I rephrased to talk about spacial awareness, rather than driving skill. Spacial awareness certainly does have an impact on driving skill, but the study would have to specifically be testing driving skill to be able to come to a conclusion about it.

This was recent; it only came out in the last week or so. Here's a source (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710).

Interesting. This would seem to suggest that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens did not completely speciate, if they were capable of producing fertile offspring. I suppose that's a little off-topic, though. Thanks for the link. :)

[Purity4]

I really don't see a problem with research like this so long as it is objective and is just pointing out differences.

The problem I see with it is the encouragement of stereotypes based upon 'statistics' and I find 'statistics' completely inaccurate and not all all representative of the facts.


I've read research that states that when heterosexual males give directions they generally do so in terms of N-S-E-W, but when women and homosexual males do it they generally use landmarks. I guess that sort of links in to the posts above about spatial awareness. I'm ok with maps but terrible in 'the real world'. I get confused wondering around my home town and I've lived there my entire life!

I am a N-S-E-W direction giver/taker and I love maps. It is easiest for me. I am not offended in any way by ridiculous studies that take some small sample of the population and use the results to say the entire population as a whole must also follow the same. I just think it's dumb.

[Oaktree]

The problem I see with it is the encouragement of stereotypes based upon 'statistics' and I find 'statistics' completely inaccurate and not all all representative of the facts.

I am a N-S-E-W direction giver/taker and I love maps. It is easiest for me. I am not offended in any way by ridiculous studies that take some small sample of the population and use the results to say the entire population as a whole must also follow the same. I just think it's dumb.

These sorts of studies don't say that everyone is a certain way. They point out trends. There are certainly women that are very spatially capable; it just so happens that men tend to be more spatially capable.

[jooxis]

That doesn't make the studies useless. Human beings have known they couldn't breathe underwater for a long time. There certainly was a long period of time where we didn't know why.

There doesn't have to be a known cause for us to see the effects and study them.

Let me phrase it better and take a made-up example.

If a study came out showing brown-eyed people are much more intelligent than light-eyed people without any explanation why, I would not be able to accept that as a fact because it doesn't make sense. I can't think of a logical correlation between eye color and intelligence and if scientists can't offer one either, then the study is incomplete. It may well have been a coincidence or it may well have been due to some other factors, other than eye color. How can we know? We can't just assume it's biological and set in stone if we don't know. We need to know the cause. This is why the "why" is important. If they can offer a biological explanation, then fine.

The conclusion in such a study, without an explanation would have to be:
"statistically, for some reason, brown-eyed people perform better on IQ tests than light-eyed people"

and NOT: "brown-eyed people must have some biological advantage and are naturally gifted with higher intelligence"

[fragglerocks]

Jooxis, I was not disagreeing with everything you said. I can't argue with
If a study came out showing brown-eyed people are much more intelligent than light-eyed people without any explanation why, I would not be able to accept that as a fact because it doesn't make sense.
and
We can't just assume it's biological and set in stone if we don't know.
because what logical, rational person could?
What I can't get around is why you think a study should arrive at a root cause in order to be factual? Correlation does not imply causation.

[jooxis]

because what logical, rational person could?
What I can't get around is why you think a study should arrive at a root cause in order to be factual? Correlation does not imply causation.

I was suggesting a study without an explanation cannot/should not jump to conclusions about differences being biological if they cannot be explained biologically (yet). I wouldn't argue that the statistics the study came up with are false, I just wouldn't accept it as a biological fact without a biological explanation.

[Mistermook]

I could accept something as a fact if it was a fact, even if I didn't know the reason for it; but people aren't built for facts in a vacuums. We tend to make stuff up to explain things we don't understand even if we're just throwing darts at the library. But we don't just throw darts anywhere, we tend to throw them at our biases and assumptions. That's not always a bad thing, but it's something any data set needs to be aware of. I don't want coincidences becoming miracles, or things that are so because of our natural assumptions and common behaviors becoming ingrained as factual in our assessments of what we're always like.

I made a number of assumptions in this post too, but I think I could make a reasonable case for them as being so. I'm aware of the bias. The problem becomes when we're not aware of the bias, or when we're actually dishonest about the biases.

[simbalena]

I could accept something as a fact if it was a fact, even if I didn't know the reason for it; but people aren't built for facts in a vacuums. We tend to make stuff up to explain things we don't understand even if we're just throwing darts at the library. But we don't just throw darts anywhere, we tend to throw them at our biases and assumptions.

True, and this influences the theories and hypotheses people choose to test as well as the conclusions they come to. People design studies based on their biases and assumptions so it is likely that there will be more facts found to support those biases. e.g. people may design a study to test a hypothesis that intelligence is related to race because they want to find a correlation between intelligence and race.

In theory a valid and reliable scientific study should provide unbiased results, but because humans are human it's a constant battle to maintain objectivity. And a lot of scientists are probably less objective than they think they are.

[tizerist]

considering how non-Africans (i.e., whites) have treated Africans (i.e., blacks)
What a completely ill-educated comment. If you know nothing, best not to speak at all, because every single word you come out with will embarass you.
Just ask my Japanese friend, who, according to you, is white. Duh.

[Safyre420]

What a completely ill-educated comment. If you know nothing, best not to speak at all, because every single word you come out with will embarass you.
Just ask my Japanese friend, who, according to you, is white. Duh.

Mmm taking offense where no offense was meant.

Fakepeeps wasn't stating that only whites have mistreated africans, they only referred to the most common example of mistreatment towards africans. Another super awesome example of mistreatment of africans would be other africans selling their fellow africans into slavery to the white man. Learn to read kthxbai.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Staff steppin' in here:

tizerist - You've been extremely rude and aggressive in this thread. Do not post in this thread again. Ignoring this instruction will result in warning points as well as a loss of access to the entire Debate Room.

Everyone else: Please do not respond to tizerist's posts from here on, as tizerist will no longer be participating in this debate. Thanks.

[el_flel]

I am a N-S-E-W direction giver/taker and I love maps. It is easiest for me. I am not offended in any way by ridiculous studies that take some small sample of the population and use the results to say the entire population as a whole must also follow the same. I just think it's dumb.The study found a trend. It most certainly wasn't claiming that all straight men give NSEW directions and all women and gay men use landmarks. That's why I said 'generally'. It stated which sex was more likely to use which method. Of course there are people who deviate from the pattern they found, no one said you must fit in with it.

The only reason I mentioned the study was because others were talking about gender differences in spatial awareness and this tied in with that.

[Purity4]

The study found a trend. It most certainly wasn't claiming that all straight men give NSEW directions and all women and gay men use landmarks. That's why I said 'generally'. It stated which sex was more likely to use which method. Of course there are people who deviate from the pattern they found, no one said you must fit in with it.

The only reason I mentioned the study was because others were talking about gender differences in spatial awareness and this tied in with that.

Yes, I know that it tied in. I was just using myself as an example of why I don't put much credit in studies especially where statistics are involved. The 'trend' can only be accurate for some but not all so I just don't see the point in such studies. If a trend means majority, there is still a significant number the results will not apply to. If a trend is found when the study sample was minimal in number, then that trend may be completely nonexistent in a study with a larger control group, or with a group from another region/locale. It's finding a pattern where there really isn't one, in my opinion.

[el_flel]

The findings are still valid though, just because they don't apply to every single person on the planet doesn't mean they should be disregarded. Unless you can test every single person in the world you're not going to get many experiments where the results can be applied to everyone, because there are too many factors involved that affect the generalisability. It doesn't render them worthless, however. It's about individual differences.

Also, all scientific research uses statistics. If you're going to disregard any research on the basis that they use statistics then you're pretty much disregarding everything scientists have discovered.

[Vanito]

Research like this is cool as long as all get equal chances. Sadly not everyone understands what "on average" means. Animals vary biology wise, so one may expect the same for humans, no suprise there.

The gay research is funny. As far as gay & spatial insight goes this confims what is typical on gay dating sites. When you mention "math is fun" the majority says "I suck at math/I hate math". The *average* gay dude is not fond of the topic, and women hate math even more. No talking math with most women. *Most* women can't park cars in either. (never tested this on dudes)

Theres always an exception to the rule, as I am a bi dude and LIKE the whole spatial math thing and score above average. Never parked a car.

Typically gay men score somewhat more in the feminine talents. In singing and dancing gay men on average do better than straight. The more feminine the guy the more bound he is to have biological female talents instead of male ones. Fashion designers almost by default are gay.

In "idols" or TV shows the singing talent variation gives a funny effect. They have it easy finding good looking women who can sing well, the men do much worse in singing. They usually keep one nice looking white straight dude in the show because girls like him, but they tend to be the worst singers. (of they have a not-white nice looking dude who DO can sing, he wins out) Typically any-race men in Idols sings better than white men, so in the finals theres a disproportionally lot of not-white-men, women and gay men.

Is there any research on singing talent and race?

Most of the dutch male voice-talented singers are gay men, and a disproportiontate part of the TV hosts/comedians/entertainers is gay/male too. Thats what you get when everyone comes out of the closet. It makes one wonder about how many other countries artists are in the closet. Lesbians seem less than average or normal amounts.

What lacks in the racial research:
They mention blacks at age 3 have had no education: but what about the quality of the food during pregnancy? We all know folic acid matters, do black swallow that as often as whites? How about vitamin D? Blacks in colder countries are bound to have more health/mental issues because they uptake vitamin D less and most ppl don't seem to know vitamin D VS sun resistance is the main reason why on some continents people develop white and in some they have a black skin.

Sources for male/female brain biology:
"Brain Sex" is a popular market book about the biology of gender, the biological differences between men and women, by Anne Moir (geneticist) and David Jessel (journalist), first published by Michael Joseph (a division of Penguin) in 1989.

Documentary which mentions why skin colors vary in a laymans way. The body prefers to be darker, but has to be white to updake vitamin D in countries where is not much sunlight. (WARNING for creationists: evolution in the documentary! Help!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4
The Journey of Man is a documentary that talks about our evolution, our recent history, and how we came to be to the way we are today. It looks at the Y chromosome, that's passed down from male to male, and tracks the marker mutations to map our ancestors' journey. It's how we conquered the Earth in just the last 59,000 years.

[grumpy_otter]

I was suggesting a study without an explanation cannot/should not jump to conclusions about differences being biological if they cannot be explained biologically (yet). I wouldn't argue that the statistics the study came up with are false, I just wouldn't accept it as a biological fact without a biological explanation.

Exactly! Brown eyes being linked to intelligence does not mean that brown eyes cause intelligence.

And hey--this thread came up in real life for me. My daughter and I watched the Preakness over the weekend, and she suddenly turned to me and asked "How come there are no black jockeys?" So the first thing I thought of was "racism," but then I thought of that study we'd been discussing and said "I think black people have higher bone density, so they are generally heavier." I double-checked, and I was right--which was cool. Because otherwise, we probably would have only discussed the racial component of the horse-racing world. This thread made our conversation much more in-depth. :)

[fakepeeps7]

In "idols" or TV shows the singing talent variation gives a funny effect. They have it easy finding good looking women who can sing well, the men do much worse in singing. They usually keep one nice looking white straight dude in the show because girls like him, but they tend to be the worst singers. (of they have a not-white nice looking dude who DO can sing, he wins out) Typically any-race men in Idols sings better than white men, so in the finals theres a disproportionally lot of not-white-men, women and gay men.

Is there any research on singing talent and race?

There might be. But I don't know if it's so much a biological thing as a cultural one.

If you're talking about the U.S., there is a disproportionately large number of black singers in the Idol contests (and I say disproportionate based on the actual percentage of black singers in such competitions versus the percentage of black people in society in general). I don't know if that's a biological difference or a cultural one; a lot of those kids grow up singing in the church choirs, many of which are predominantly black.

In my area, we don't have a heck of a lot of black people. We do, however, have a lot of people of Asian descent. Have you ever noticed that there are very few Asian singers (male or female)? Considering the percentage of people on this planet that are Asian, we should have a ton of good Asian singers. But we don't. Is that biological? Or do those cultures just not put as much emphasis on singing? (It's not like they're not musical; they pretty much dominate when it comes to playing classical instruments.)

[jooxis]

Have you ever noticed that there are very few Asian singers (male or female)? Considering the percentage of people on this planet that are Asian, we should have a ton of good Asian singers. But we don't. Is that biological? Or do those cultures just not put as much emphasis on singing? (It's not like they're not musical; they pretty much dominate when it comes to playing classical instruments.)

I was going to ask this... referring to North America specifically. Why are there very few Asian singers?
Why no Asian comedians? Why are all the comedians either black or Jewish?

[fakepeeps7]

I was going to ask this... referring to North America specifically. Why are there very few Asian singers?
Why no Asian comedians? Why are all the comedians either black or Jewish?

There are some Asian comedians (Margaret Cho comes to mind). As for Asian singers... I really don't know. It seems a lot of them can't carry a tune very well. (The exception seems to be people from the Philippines. There are some awesome singers from that country!) I've often wondered if it has something to do with the traditional cultural forms of singing in places like China. Ever heard Chinese opera? To Western ears, some of it sounds like fingernails on a blackboard. I think they use different musical scales, too, so the acoustic aesthetics are bound to be different.

As for why there are so many black and Jewish comedians... I have no idea. Maybe everyone else just takes themselves too seriously? :)

[Purity4]

I was going to ask this... referring to North America specifically. Why are there very few Asian singers?
Why no Asian comedians? Why are all the comedians either black or Jewish?

Here is a good one, but this unfortunately, was not aired in North America:

Lin Yu Chun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-tOsM6F4Y)

[RoseCity]

I was going to ask this... referring to North America specifically. Why are there very few Asian singers?
Why no Asian comedians? Why are all the comedians either black or Jewish?

Now Jews are a racial group?

[fakepeeps7]

Now Jews are a racial group?

More technically, Hebrews are an ethnic group. But since so many of them are Jews, I think people get lazy and use the wrong term.

[simbalena]

Have you ever noticed that there are very few Asian singers (male or female)? Considering the percentage of people on this planet that are Asian, we should have a ton of good Asian singers. But we don't. Is that biological? Or do those cultures just not put as much emphasis on singing?

Are you referring to your country or the whole world? There are millions of great Asian singers in the world so of course it's not biological! I can't believe anyone could even think that!

[fakepeeps7]

Are you referring to your country or the whole world? There are millions of great Asian singers in the world so of course it's not biological! I can't believe anyone could even think that!

I was talking about Asian singers who've made it big in the world in general. Of course there are Asian singers in Asia... but we've yet to see a global Asian superstar (whereas there are plenty of white and black singers who have become popular in a worldwide sense).

[simbalena]

I was talking about Asian singers who've made it big in the world in general. Of course there are Asian singers in Asia... but we've yet to see a global Asian superstar (whereas there are plenty of white and black singers who have become popular in a worldwide sense).

But how do you define "popular in a worldwide sense"? Aren't you really just referring to popular American culture?

[fakepeeps7]

But how do you define "popular in a worldwide sense"? Aren't you really just referring to popular American culture?

No, I'm not. Were Michael Jackson and The Beatles merely "popular American culture"? They may have come out of America (or Western countries... yes, I know The Beatles were actually British), but they were recognizable all over the world. I'm afraid Asia hasn't yet given us that kind of phenomenon.

[Doddibot]

As for Asian singers... I really don't know. It seems a lot of them can't carry a tune very well.
I remember reading that perfect pitch was more common in East Asian populations, because the language is tonal and therefore being able to recognise musical tones precisely was selected for.

There are many Asian musicians, but you're right that most Asian singers have not reached an audience outside of their home country.

[RoseCity]

More technically, Hebrews are an ethnic group. But since so many of them are Jews, I think people get lazy and use the wrong term.

Are you kidding?

[Vanito]

There might be. But I don't know if it's so much a biological thing as a cultural one.

If you're talking about the U.S., there is a disproportionately large number of black singers in the Idol contests (and I say disproportionate based on the actual percentage of black singers in such competitions versus the percentage of black people in society in general). I don't know if that's a biological difference or a cultural one; a lot of those kids grow up singing in the church choirs, many of which are predominantly black.

In my area, we don't have a heck of a lot of black people. We do, however, have a lot of people of Asian descent. Have you ever noticed that there are very few Asian singers (male or female)? Considering the percentage of people on this planet that are Asian, we should have a ton of good Asian singers. But we don't. Is that biological? Or do those cultures just not put as much emphasis on singing? (It's not like they're not musical; they pretty much dominate when it comes to playing classical instruments.)
In Holland not-whites here would be expected to have a cultural background with less singing instead of more.

[tjstreak]

A Ph.D. candidate has to write his thesis on something!

More seriously, knowing whether things like intelligence or personality traits are the product of genetics or the environment (nature or nurture) can have tremendous policy implications. If it is genetic, there is not much one can do, short of a eugenics program, to increase intelligence in the population. If it is nurture, then public policy can have a major impact on our well being.

I have dealt with this in brain development. The development of the human brain in our early years, and particularly the first year of life is critically important. It's why governmental agencies, the medical profession and judges take issues involving babies and very young children so seriously. Damage or neglect of a child at this age cannot be repaired and it will follow a child for the rest of his life. And the damage is severe. We would not know this without all of the studies on the early brain however.

Knowing how men and women differ is also extremely important. I think we all know they are not alike and that their brains work differently. But we have not pinpointed all the differences. But if we know how women think, and how men think, we can structure educational and other programs to meet their style of thinking.

Race gets tricker, because you can find yourself adopting socially unacceptable ideas (like eugenics programs) pretty quickly. I mean, once you argue that "Jews or blacks are inferior," aren't NAZI style death camps the next step?

As far as homosexuality, when I was younger it was considered to be either a mental illness or a symptom of a mental illness. We have since decided that that viewpoint was wrong. Unfortunately, a lot of people were subjected to harmful discrimination based on very scant evidence. So, in this case, the studies went a long way towards eliminating a social injustice.

[simbalena]

But if we know how women think, and how men think, we can structure educational and other programs to meet their style of thinking.


But if we do that won't people who don't fit the generalisation lose out?

[jooxis]

Here is a good one, but this unfortunately, was not aired in North America:
Lin Yu Chun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-tOsM6F4Y)

He is pretty good. I wonder whether what fakepeeps suggested has more to do with the fact that the rest of the world may not be ready to accept an Asian singer the same way. If you think about it, there aren't that many African or South American singers that have worldwide success either (unless they actually have been living in a Western country for a while now). Most of the world's HUGE stars are from America, Great Britain, Canada and Australia and they sing in English.

But if we know how women think, and how men think, we can structure educational and other programs to meet their style of thinking.

This is exactly the worst thing that could come from studies like this. For institutions to have different policies based on gender or race without even considering the individual in question. Lots of people don't fit the stereotype model.

[simbalena]

He is pretty good. I wonder whether what fakepeeps suggested has more to do with the fact that the rest of the world may not be ready to accept an Asian singer the same way. If you think about it, there aren't that many African or South American singers that have worldwide success either (unless they actually have been living in a Western country for a while now). Most of the world's HUGE stars are from America, Great Britain, Canada and Australia and they sing in English.


That's what I was getting at... the worldwide popularity of a singer is related to marketing rather than talent and ability.

ps. There are huge stars from Australia?

[grumpy_otter]

Yeah that's the other thing. I will never accept anything a study proves as "fact" if they don't come up with a logical detailed explanation for it. Otherwise, it could well be other factors (rather than biological ones) that are at play.

"Women are worse than men at math statistically but we don't know why, have no explanation, so it's probably because women might be less biologically capable of doing math" isn't really good enough.

I think you will like this article: http://xcelab.net/rm/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/chess-gender-statistics.pdf

I was reading Roger Ebert, and a series of links led me to his review of "Searching for Bobby Fischer," so then I wanted to read about Boris Spassky, which led me to read about all these other great players, and then I thought "Hang on! How come none of these great players are women? I wonder if it is some sort of biological thing?" (lol)

So when I googled, this article came up. Seems to me like this article shows the best approach to science--very balanced and without an agenda other than curious inquiry.

[Doddibot]

There are huge stars from Australia?
I think at least some of our stars (Kylie Minogue, Olivia Newton-John, John Farnham, Delta Goodrem, Silverchair, AC/DC) could be said to be huge in places other than Australia.

[Neerie]

This is exactly the worst thing that could come from studies like this. For institutions to have different policies based on gender or race without even considering the individual in question. Lots of people don't fit the stereotype model.

I agree. While on average boys and girls might have different learning patterns, when it comes to education, basing a program only on how the average kid learns means leaving a lot of kids behind. And that is the flaw with how most education systems work today.

There should be at least 2 different educationnal approaches, and kids should be tested, not for intelligence, but for their learning pattern, so they can be placed in the classes that fit them better. I bet we would have a lot less dropouts and much more knowledgeable people as a whole.

[tjstreak]

But if we do that won't people who don't fit the generalisation lose out?

This would be correct, to some extent, if everyone had individualized learning plans. However, for the most part, schools offer a "one size fits all" approach to education.

If we are going to have "one size fits all" shouldn't we try to find the size that will fit the most people?

[tjstreak]

I think at least some of our stars (Kylie Minogue, Olivia Newton-John, John Farnham, Delta Goodrem, Silverchair, AC/DC) could be said to be huge in places other than Australia.

Notice, that most of these popular singers sing in English?

So there may not be many Asian pop stars. But how about Asian violinists or pianists?

Being a pop star is indicative of appealing to the (American) mass market. But it is not indicative of musical talent or singing ability. Take Britney Spears, for example....

[fakepeeps7]

Are you kidding?

No, I'm not kidding. What's your point?

[RoseCity]

The last Hebrews I know about were in the Old Testament.

[fakepeeps7]

The last Hebrews I know about were in the Old Testament.

Then what do you call that group of people? Aside from religion, they are a distinctive ethnic group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions#Genetic_studies_of_DNA).

You don't want us calling them "Jews". You don't want us calling them "Hebrews". What the heck are we supposed to call that group, then? Instead of just leaving unhelpful little comments, why don't you contribute a little more and help the rest of us understand?

[fragglerocks]

Hebrews are the direct descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They are considered an ethnic group, and are alive and well today. RoseCity, instead of one liners like "Are you kidding?" designed like a drive-by bullying, why don't you enlighten us as to why you think she's kidding.

[Vanito]

This would be correct, to some extent, if everyone had individualized learning plans. However, for the most part, schools offer a "one size fits all" approach to education.

If we are going to have "one size fits all" shouldn't we try to find the size that will fit the most people?

Learning could improve a lot for many children. Those who learn easily by reading and books have a good advantage now, those who learn better at other methods though are disadvantaged. Some people learn well by hearing, some by experimenting, some by learning theory first. Ideally classes would be separated by tests for those skills.

And the way math is taught just sucks. Many kids on asking simply have failed to understand the basic concept, namely that in formulas like 2x + 2 = y the X and Y are just numbers you don't know and have to figure out. They think theres some difficult concept behind it, not that the idea behind it is so freaking simple. When you teach kids that in grade 2, its way easier to tutor them back, than when they are in the start of the 6th of high school, and have failed to understand the concept for 5 years, thus have missed out all.

Having english as a first language is a MAJOR advantage when making music for the international market. Writing lyrics in your second language is HARD. Same goes for poetry etc.

[fragglerocks]

Testing could improve a lot for many children. Those who learn easily by reading and books have a good advantage now, those who learn better at other methods though are disadvantaged. Some people learn well by hearing, some by experimenting, some by learning theory first. Ideally classes would be separated on tests for those skills.

Schools actually do have something called an IEP (Individualized Education Plan). It does somewhat function in the way that a few of you are talking about. My daughter is autistic and is in preschool. Her IEP even goes as far as bringing in ABA and special tools designed just for her in class. IEP's are not given to every student, but certainly the ones who need it. When she has her appt. with Knights of Columbus, she will be tested and placed on the autism spectrum, which will change her IEP even further. Her teachers will work with her however is necessary, even if what she is taught is different that the rest of the class. I'm not sure why a poster thought they are one sized fits all, because I have not seen that in my experience.

[el_flel]

I've seen it. My brother clearly was different from other children but the teachers did nothing and eventually at the age of 14 he was diagnosed with ADHD. Even after his diagnosis he still was treated in exactly the same way as other students even though he can't learn in the same way as other students. Like your daughter, fragglerocks, he would have massively benefit from an IEP, but he never got one. I think partly it was because he was diagnosed so late and partly because schools don't really understand ADHD in the way they understand other disorders like autism or dyslexia. My cousin is autistic and he got help from the special needs department at his school, but my brother never did.

I'm definitely not saying that my case is the norm, but not all schools are as good as they should be in that respect, perhaps because of staffing issues etc. It was a shame because my brother is so, so clever and could have done so much better with the proper help.

[fragglerocks]

I've seen it. My brother clearly was different from other children but the teachers did nothing and eventually at the age of 14 he was diagnosed with ADHD. Even after his diagnosis he still was treated in exactly the same way as other students even though he can't learn in the same way as other students. Like your daughter, fragglerocks, he would have massively benefit from an IEP, but he never got one. I think partly it was because he was diagnosed so late and partly because schools don't really understand ADHD in the way they understand other disorders like autism or dyslexia. My cousin is autistic and he got help from the special needs department at his school, but my brother never did.

I'm definitely not saying that my case is the norm, but not all schools are as good as they should be in that respect, perhaps because of staffing issues etc. It was a shame because my brother is so, so clever and could have done so much better with the proper help.

The area I live in has some of the top Autism programs the country has to offer, and in that my daughter is very lucky. It is true that schools are understaffed, and some teachers do not have access to the programs my daughter's school does. It is a free public school, though, and I wrongly assumed that if her school meets those standards that others will too. Its the only experience that I have to draw from though.

My brother kind of has the same story. He's 25 and back when we were younger IEP's were practically non-existent. The educational system is heading in the right direction, but definitely needs more work.

[RoseCity]

Hebrews are the direct descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They are considered an ethnic group, and are alive and well today. RoseCity, instead of one liners like "Are you kidding?" designed like a drive-by bullying, why don't you enlighten us as to why you think she's kidding.

Sometimes it's hard to tell when people are kidding or using irony.
Where are these Hebrews of whom you speak? Where do they live?
In Israel? I think they call themselves Jews or Israelis. At that point in the thread it seemed like the topic had changed from talking about sexist/racist studies to the musings of white people. 'Black people are more likely to be violent.' 'Comics are blacks or Jews.' 'Asians aren't pop singers.'

[fakepeeps7]

At that point in the thread it seemed like the topic had changed from talking about sexist/racist studies to the musings of white people. 'Black people are more likely to be violent.' 'Comics are blacks or Jews.' 'Asians aren't pop singers.'

You're making some pretty big assumptions about the racial makeup of this thread. None of us have posted actual photographs of ourselves; how do you know we're all white?

I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I was just stating what I've personally observed. Is it now racist to state an observation?

[Vanito]

Sometimes it's hard to tell when people are kidding or using irony.
Where are these Hebrews of whom you speak? Where do they live?
In Israel? I think they call themselves Jews or Israelis. At that point in the thread it seemed like the topic had changed from talking about sexist/racist studies to the musings of white people. 'Black people are more likely to be violent.' 'Comics are blacks or Jews.' 'Asians aren't pop singers.'
Who says all posters debating here are white?

[Nekochanpurr]

While there hasn't been a big Asian pop star to make it.. How about song wise? Wasn't Sukyaki a big hit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukiyaki_(song) :)

[grumpy_otter]

There should be at least 2 different educationnal approaches, and kids should be tested, not for intelligence, but for their learning pattern, so they can be placed in the classes that fit them better. I bet we would have a lot less dropouts and much more knowledgeable people as a whole.

I read an article recently--let me see. . . shoot--I can't remember the specifics, but the basic thesis was that teachers should NOT structure their teaching styles to different types of learning styles because it helps the brain for students to have to attempt to process information in ways they are not comfortable doing it.

In my own experience, the problem is not usually a disconnect with a learning style, but in motivation. Motivated students will come for extra help if they don't understand something.

[Mistermook]

I think the education issues we're talking about probably deserve another thread, along with "who are Hebrews" if anyone seriously wants to hash that out.

[jooxis]

I think you will like this article: http://xcelab.net/rm/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/chess-gender-statistics.pdf


Thanks, I just read it. This is something I have also been wondering about for a while - I've observed this in chess and snooker.

While there hasn't been a big Asian pop star to make it.. How about song wise? Wasn't Sukyaki a big hit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukiyaki_(song) :)

Well, that's one song, fifty years ago. By the way, I've never heard this song in my entire life. I think really the problem is that it's hard to make a worldwide hit song without it being in English (or at least in French, Spanish or Italian). :\

[Vanito]

I read an article recently--let me see. . . shoot--I can't remember the specifics, but the basic thesis was that teachers should NOT structure their teaching styles to different types of learning styles because it helps the brain for students to have to attempt to process information in ways they are not comfortable doing it.

In my own experience, the problem is not usually a disconnect with a learning style, but in motivation. Motivated students will come for extra help if they don't understand something.

Most students I tutored were very motivated to pass their exams yet did not manage to get a proper grade in the all-fits-one school system. Peoples brains are structured differently people can adapt only within their limits. Some ways of teaching work better for one than another. If one method can make a student pass, the other fails, while motivation is there, it means one trick simply works better than the other. Some creativity in teaching really helps, bring the topic in the way that fits the student. Not the other way around. Teaching and tutoring should be focusses on teaching the pupil the most possible, after all thats what we want them to go to school for.

In follow up studies theres a lot more freedom of learning the way that fits the person, no use in limiting out pupils before simply because the method does not fit.

[fakepeeps7]

Some creativity in teaching really helps, bring the topic in the way that fits the student. Not the other way around.

So do you also believe that employers should cater to their employees' learning quirks? Or should they be allowed to hire people that can actually work for them without a ton of hand-holding?

[Purity4]

So do you also believe that employers should cater to their employees' learning quirks? Or should they be allowed to hire people that can actually work for them without a ton of hand-holding?

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Education is not a job. You don't earn money doing it. In fact, after high school, you pay for it. If you attend public school, the community pays for it. You should get what you (and the community) has paid for.

[fakepeeps7]

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Education is not a job. You don't earn money doing it. In fact, after high school, you pay for it. If you attend public school, the community pays for it. You should get what you (and the community) has paid for.

Not everyone pays for education after high school. And whether or not you get paid is beside the point. (Isn't the education itself a form of payment, anyway? Or do you think it has no value?)

If you can't learn the way everyone else does, how are you going to manage in the real world when you go to get a job? What if your job needs specialized training that the employer is supposed to provide? The company is not going to want to have to pay extra to teach one or two people in a different way because those employees wouldn't learn properly otherwise. If you can't learn the way everyone else does, you're probably going to be passed over for someone else. Is that fair? No. But when it comes down to money, who do you think the employer is going to choose: the person who learns with the teaching provided, or the person who can't learn unless they've had the teaching modified for them?

[simbalena]

Good teaching presents the information in a variety of ways so that all students get the opportunity to learn.

Teachers should change their teaching styles to benefit the students. That's what they are there for.

[Purity4]

And whether or not you get paid is beside the point. (Isn't the education itself a form of payment, anyway? Or do you think it has no value?)

If you can't learn the way everyone else does, how are you going to manage in the real world when you go to get a job? What if your job needs specialized training that the employer is supposed to provide? The company is not going to want to have to pay extra to teach one or two people in a different way because those employees wouldn't learn properly otherwise. If you can't learn the way everyone else does, you're probably going to be passed over for someone else. Is that fair? No. But when it comes down to money, who do you think the employer is going to choose: the person who learns with the teaching provided, or the person who can't learn unless they've had the teaching modified for them?

My point about being paid for work and paying for education is that education is simply not a job, it's education. Done properly, more people would be educated. I agree that student motivation is a huge factor, but that doesn't mean we should make everyone learn the same way and say screw you to those that are different. I know I'm an idealist, I completely admit that, but I don't think it's fair to say screw you to some people. I don't think being fair in education will impair future job opportunities, either. In fact, once the knowledge is there, there would be more options in the job market for someone who was able to succeed at learning.

Now, I'm not saying that every single person has the capacity for learning, regardless of method, because there will always be some who no matter what, cannot learn certain things. Then they do something else that doesn't require that particular sect of knowledge. But do be denied the opportunity to learn is just wrong.

As far as on the job learning, most places don't even offer that, so a person's learning style in school is not likely to be tested in the workplace. If a business does offer on the job learning, it is likely different than the sit-in-your-chair-and-learn-from-this-book-or-lecture style of most schools. It would be more hands-on learning.

When it comes down to money, most companies are in it for the profits. There are a few lucky employees who have bosses that give a damn about the people they employ, those those are few and far between. But if someone is educated prior to that job, then they are both starting off on even ground, rather than one lacking due to not learning the 'right' way in school.

[fakepeeps7]

Purity4, I think you're confusing what ought to be with what is. In a perfect world, we'd all be catered to, no matter what our learning style was. I might be an architect right now... but I'm not, since I couldn't grasp the math and physics the job would require, and my teachers couldn't teach it to me in a way that I "got it". I'm not even sure it's their responsibility to do that, anyway. They have limited time, and they need to teach in a way that helps a majority of the kids. (Having seen the other side, I can say that it's frustrating to be slowed down in learning because the teacher is occupied helping one or two kids who just can't grasp the subject matter.) That's what private tutors are for, I guess...

There are many jobs that require continual learning. While some of it is hands-on, some of it is not. And you said it yourself: most companies are in it for the profits. It's more cost effective to hire someone who can learn in a standard way. They may or may not have learned how to do that by that point... but if they haven't, it's unrealistic (and probably financially impractical) to expect the teachers to hand-hold.

[jhd1189]

Hmm... this thread seems to have deviated pretty far from the original topic. There are a few different topics here that might make for good discussions on their own, so if someone would like to take one for the team and start a new thread, I definitely wouldn't be opposed to that. And I might even reward you with Debate Room Brownie Points (TM).