> And all the studies done to understand those numbers show the difference in outcome is driven by tze social environment and esucation systems, and not the sexe.
No this is wrong, the studies done has shown that you can make girls do better and boys do worse by priming them. No study done has shown that you can eliminate this gap, just move it towards boys or girls being advantaged.
> You, of course, will ignore that I am sure
No, I read those studies. The stereotype threat paper just show that you can boost girls performance at the cost of boys performance and thus get equal performance at math, not that you can get relative equal performance at math and language. No such paper has shown that you can eliminate the language-math gap between girls and boys, and all data shows that the language-math divide for boys and girls stays the same.
So, all the progressive help to get girls better at math just made girls equal to boys at math, but now girls has an enormous advantage at language because they boosted girls score overall, they didn't make things equal.
Your own link shows that the "math gap" was eliminated in Finland and Sweden, both countries with very equitable education standards, Finland in particular is often cited for having the best education system in the world.
The very study you linked makes the point that male V. female performance in education appears to be linked to differences in how the sexes are treated, not to innate differences between them
There are other studies, but that is the study that you linked.
> Your own link shows that the "math gap" was eliminated in Finland and Sweden, both countries with very equitable education standards, Finland in particular is often cited for having the best education system in the world.
At the cost of creating a massive language gap. The math-language divide is still there, they just boosted girls score overall they didn't close the gap where girls do relatively better in language and boys math.
So what the poster above saw was that math-language gap in action, women dominated the men in language in their experience, just like the data says we should expect.
> The part about making boys worse is something you made up.
Look at the data yourself, you clearly didn't read the paper, this is the data from the original stereotype threat paper, look at how much worse boys does.
No this is wrong, the studies done has shown that you can make girls do better and boys do worse by priming them. No study done has shown that you can eliminate this gap, just move it towards boys or girls being advantaged.
> You, of course, will ignore that I am sure
No, I read those studies. The stereotype threat paper just show that you can boost girls performance at the cost of boys performance and thus get equal performance at math, not that you can get relative equal performance at math and language. No such paper has shown that you can eliminate the language-math gap between girls and boys, and all data shows that the language-math divide for boys and girls stays the same.
So, all the progressive help to get girls better at math just made girls equal to boys at math, but now girls has an enormous advantage at language because they boosted girls score overall, they didn't make things equal.