I can see why "encouragement and bias" might account for higher male achievement, but not why that would at the same time account for lower male achievement.
That's a very good point. This seems to be a major point against an explanation based solely on encouragement/bias.
In a solely encouragement/discouragement based theory, it might be that for some reason, males are encouraged as well as discouraged more strongly than females. I don't know of any (even anecdotal) evidence of this happening, so I wouldn't bet on it.
In any case, the underlying origins of these statistics are no doubt complex, messy and controversial.
Re:Daring to Discuss Women in Science
by m-photonic on Tuesday June 08, 2010 @04:23AM
(#1413318)
Males are not a homogenous group. There's no reason why some subgroups of males couldn't be negatively affected by social pressures just because other subgroups are positively affected.
I think in a similar way, encouragement and bias -- like the speed of the flywheel -- can account for this variability, rather than intrinsic differences in the capacity for mathematical reasoning.
That said, it is interesting why the gap seemed to bottom out at 4 to 1 despite supposed programs to encourage young women to go into mathematics and science.