“That’s just generalizing” – said the general female. Females generally don’t know how to generalize because of the general fact that they generally lack higher general mathematical skill. Generalizing is a version of mathematics.
Data has disclosed large sex differences of mathematical reasoning ability to occur before age 13 of males excelling.
It’s easy to apply an agenda that states environmental & social factors exclusively, or mostly, explains the data, however, there’s a better answer. The scientific method negates the most classically ideal & politically expedient conclusions, & that is why it is the least popular.
Females have been reported to do well in what is referred to as computational mathematics, males score significantly higher on more abstract mathematics.
In the U.S. differences have been discovered after puberty when the curriculum becomes more abstract.
There’s been another sociological hypothesis to try to discount the science, as usual, that males were just simply better because they had more opportunity to enroll in harder math courses, especially higher level courses, than females, but actually, males are more prone to risk taking & to not be hindered by “math anxiety”.
Data collected over 8 years by the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth disclosed sex differences of mathematical reasoning ability of pre-adolescents – before age 13 & before harder courses – with essentially same formal education.
There was much convoluted analysis, but, ultimately, by calling-a-spade-a-spade, males scored higher on mathematical reasoning ability. Sometimes I really do favor some Platonic philosophy that gives the blunt truth instead of the wild-goose-chase of spanning time & expanding formulas to state the obvious that males are more logical. This testing called SMPY at Johns Hopkins University was of a sub-set of already mathematically gifted males & females, but with testing of other f.-m. testing of poor or mediocre mathematical aptitude, there are same patterns. There’s a graph which I can’t reproduce in pictoral format, so physical copies should be gathered to confirm.
Their development during the latter investigation of their testing was discovered to have had mathematical & science reasoning to be persistently different with the sexes. Both math & verbal reasoning abilities of males advanced to better levels than females. It’s well known now that females are more prone to verbosity, however, males can refine verbosity even better, it’s just that males have more of a tendency to incline to “synthetic”, for a lack of a better word, knowledge. There’s the argument: “you would derive better ethics from more in depth, “feminine”/”new agey” lectures.” I highly doubt ancient mysticism that was used as symbols to work with what was available to them at that development to try to make sense of reality was created by women anyway. No, you derive better ethics & more cohesion from “mechanical” logic.
In a related science study to the aforementioned math testing, Benbow & Stanley confirmed that personality traits associated with scientists is, usually, much more frequent by males.
There are environmental & social arguments as hypothesis, but they are just that. What is presented by distractions is that females do more poorly because of being taught less, but actually males are just more prone to enroll themselves in harder math, etc.. It was also reported that males improved on verbal ability, in spite of the fact that females are more prone to enroll in more verbal courses. Environmental & social factors only contribute to sex differences of smaller degrees.
It has been suggested that spatial ability is related to mathematical skill. Spatial ability was discovered to be related to better performance on SAT-M as a whole. The girls likely solved some problems with verbal strategy. Alternatively, mathematically gifted females would require more spacial ability practice than mathematically gifted boys to do as well on SAT-M.
Spacial ability has concluded a developmental trend – influence by sex hormones, & is perhaps an autosomal gene with reduced penetrance of females.
Another suggestion for the sex differences of spacial ability is that males & females have left & right hemispheres of brains differently lateralized. Experimental & clinical data gives that the left hemisphere is specialized for language processing & the right for spacial processing. It is indicated that males have greater right hemisphere specialization than females. Researchers have investigated the possibility that males are more lateralized than females, might be why there’s sex differences of spacial ability.
Conclusively, there’s specific physiological correlates of extremely high mathematical & verbal reasoning skills.
Precocious boys have been reported to have puberty induced significantly later than precocious females. Genius boys are potentials not necessarily readily apparent.
Sex differences of cognition are indicated due to increased levels of testosterone. Consequences of fetal exposure to increase of testosterone have been in fact discovered for precocious youth. You read correctly; testosterone would make one more logical.
Environmental & societal simplifications does not entirely explain the data. It’s a combination of both nature & nurture, with the, repeatedly, nature preceding culture.
For a much more terse, masculine formula of this report, search for a short documentary entitled: ‘SFTU 502. Divine feminine’ bullshit vs something useful’. He’s not an amazing philosopher, but he does make some good points.
Citations: Sex Differences In The Brain (Progress In Brain Research Volume 61) Edited by G.J. De Vries, J.P.C. De Bruin, H.B.M. Uylings & M.A. Corner, pg.: 469, 470, 472, 473, 474, 476, 478, 479,