Boys and girls learn differently?

[Hoppinggreen]

DD’s School Facebook page has proudly announced that this morning the teachers attended a workshop on “how boys and girls learn differently “
Is this true? I know it used to be accepted theory but hasn’t it been debunked? If so does anyone have any credible sources ?
I’m not saying there aren’t innate differences in the sexes (penis vs vulva) but surely our brains are actually the same?
Happy to be told I’m wrong but if I’m right I wouid like some concrete info before I tackle it with The Head

IIRC, there might be a stronger relationship between cognitive learning styles and the ratio of the length of your index finger to your ring finger than there is to sex.

I usually reject any suggestion of gender stereotypes but I do find this topic challenging. I attended a conference last year in Geneva with speakers from CERN, the university of Geneva, EPFL and some Swiss organisations for gender equality. They were involved in a study on behaviours in education and their outcomes and impact on girls. They reiterated the socialisation impact and classroom the behaviours that disadvantage girls but they also concluded the need to further interrogate whether the education system, the curriculum, delivery, testing and analysis disadvantages girls, implying that there is a difference in learning between the sexes.

There were lots of gender stereotypes thrown around which may reflect what was observed in the research but they mentioned that boys were more likely to get help with literacy while it was accepted that girls might struggle with numeracy and instead of receiving the corresponding levels of support, they were left to find their own level. So.. yes... socialised. .. girls read and and less strong in maths. But is this really just socialisation or is there a hormonal element to it.

I would love to read credible research which explored this more.

I wasn't positing an argument, Scott, I was explaining basic statistics to you. Maths doesn't work on a "some people think this, while other people disagree" basis.

(Whether or not there are significant differences between the male and female populations aside, I think the one take home lesson we can all glean from this thread is that maths is not Scott's strong subject.)

Where there are different attitudes towards education and the subjects girls and boys are supposed to be good at, there is a greater level of equality. In China, you are expected to work hard at anything you don't excel at to improve your grades, there isn't such an expectation of boy and girl subjects, so there is a more equal level of girls going into STEM.

Young animals don't learn differently based on sex; they learn differently based on temperament. Their focus of attention shifts after puberty and their behaviour becomes more strongly influenced by sex and reproduction.
I don't see any evidence to support humans being very different.

I think the one take home lesson we can all glean from this thread is that maths is not Scott's strong subject.

Ad hominem attacks when the evidence inconveniently threatens your world view?

If the differences are insignificant, why are so many experts stating that we need to take them into consideration in regard to education? 🤔

Scott, you haven't given any evidence. You've copied something from Google, then posted a link to a paper you admit you haven't read.
women with exposure to high levels of prenatal androgens due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) were more likely than controls to have income in the top 20th percentile, reflecting employment in male-typical, higher-paying jobs
This doesn't say anything about learning styles. As it relates to androgens it might account for a higher rate of aggression in some females who are exposed to a higher level in the womb. Which would proved the point, actually, that there are FEWER rather than more clear cut sex differences between men and women, because it's indicating a variation of androgens amongst females.

Do you understand what the overlapping distribution curves are showing, Scott? Yes, the differences in the mean values are significant, but not everyone is average (obviously).

In the diagram I'm posting here, if we go back to Fermat's example, all the girls who are in the pink shaded area of the graph have scores which are below the mean boys' score, and the boys in the blue area have scores which are above the girls' mean score. (Ignore the numbers, it's just a graph I found on some website.)

So yes, there may be a significant difference in mathematical terms. But there is so much overlap, that you can't separate out what is typically 'male' or 'female', whether it's the number of words in their vocabulary or any other attribute. So a child with a vocabulary of 2300 words is slightly more likely to be female, but could easily be male.

One of the problems with research is that projects that find a difference however slight are published. Many more find no significant difference and are therefore not published. So it isn't accurate to talk about overwhelming evidence.

Do you understand what the overlapping distribution curves are showing,Scott?

There were no overlapping distribution curves in the article I posted.

The article you admit you haven't read? What?!

There were no overlapping distribution curves in the article I posted.

I meant the one's in Fermat's post from earlier that you appeared not to have understood.

If the differences are insignificant, why are so many experts stating that we need to take them into consideration in regard to education?

I was showing you how differences can be significant, but not absolute.

Scott, the quotation I took from your example above indicates the opposite of the point you were trying to make (that men and women have different learning styles). It indicates that there is a variety of interests/abilities/aggression amongst females. If that's the point you were in fact trying to make then great, we agree, have a nice evening.

I meant the one's in Fermat's post from earlier that you appeared not to have understood.

I know you meant that one and I did understand it. However, she was attempting to use the conclusion of that article as a means to nullify the conclusion of the one I posted which seemingly doesn't agree as it states that these gendered difference are a consideration in regard to education.

Scientists have discovered approximately 100 gender differences in the brain, and the importance of these differences cannot be overstated.Understanding gender differences from a neurological perspective not only opens the door to greater appreciation of the different genders, it also calls into question how we parent, educate, and support our children from a young age.

I'm not attempting to argue that the one I posted is necessarily right. However, I'm not just going to prioritise one and ignore the other in line with what I want the conclusion to be.

Good stuff.
Scientists have discovered approximately 100 gender differences in the brain, and the importance of these differences cannot be overstated.Understanding gender differences from a neurological perspective not only opens the door to greater appreciation of the different genders, it also calls into question how we parent, educate, and support our children from a young age.
That all sounds very vague (I would also add SEX not gender). I'm not against the idea of there being differences on average in male and female brains, I'm open to looking at evidence, but you're not giving us anything to engage with, and you've got a bit of a cheek plopping in links to papers you haven't read and then expecting us to read them for you so that we can give our opinions. Do your own bloody reading then come back when you've got something to say what you've discovered.

We don't seem to: be discussing the same thing, Scott. I was referring to Fermat's post at 18:39. The one with the graphs. I haven't got a clue what article you're referring to. My argument is more general.

Think of it like heights. Average for men is somewhere around 5'10" and for women about 5'4", with a distribution around those values. You seem to be saying the equivalent of all men are 5'10" and all women are 5'4".

I took it that Fermat was saying that any small differences between gender were likely to be effectively nullified by the differences between individuals. However, the article I posted seems to place some significance on the differences. That was what I was referring to.

No, I didn't mean that "all boys are x".

The article is suggesting that there are, generally speaking, key differences between the sexes which should be considered when approaching education.

In that case, you didn't understand, Scott. Differences can be significant without being absolute. Think of the height analogy. People are all different heights, but a person who is 6' tall is more likely to be male and a person who is 5' tall is more likely to be female. But some women are 6' tall and some men are 5' tall.

Stop pretending you've read the fing article when you've already stated you haven't, you're making a t of yourself thinking you can come on here and dazzle feminists on your superior analytic skills when you haven't even read the paper you're making claims about, are copy and pasting 'a quick Google search' and using quotations that state the OPPOSITE of what you claim they state. Stop wasting everyone's p*ing time and come back when you've done some research and have something to say about it, over and out.

The article is suggesting that there are, generally speaking, key differences between the sexes which should be considered when approaching education.

That may or may not be true. And even if it is, some girls will behave more like typical boys and some boys will behave more like typical girls (those overlapping bell curves again). We shouldn't effectively exclude those children who are not typical of their sex in their learning strategies. Treating them like individuals would seem to be a more appropriate way to tackle the issue.

I think boys certainly need something to be done to adjust and improve the school environment for them, given the growing gap in educational attainment, and also that some studies show that this is down to female teachers marking them down by gender.

e.g.

www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20430-two-studies-show-one-cause-of-boys-educational-failure-their-teachers

If:
"boys certainly need something to be done to adjust and improve the school environment for them, given the growing gap in educational attainment,"
then why aren't men stepping up to the mark to do this? Where are the men? Why are you expecting women to take care of all this?

It's just the same old Blame Women again: "..and also that some studies show that this is down to female teachers marking them down by gender." Any solid evidence for that?

I don't think I said I expected women to fix it? Anyhow I thought feminists were pro equality for all and so would be fighting for such in all cases?
Surely feminism is not simply about promoting the sectional advantage of a single part of society to the possible detriment of anyone seen as outgroup? Also what percentage of the teaching work force is female? A reasonably decent majority?

Please see the 2x studies in the link.