Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There's plenty of research on the "entity theory" bias, mostly applied to gender. I.e. if you tell girls that they're bad at math, on average, they will act as if they are.

Unfortunately, framing math as hard or scary only serves to reinforce stereotypes and bar people who do not have the keys to defuse that framing from advancing. It's not the rich male kids who are told math is hard and scary.




Does the "if you tell girls they're bad at maths ..." work differently with boys?

In UK girls get the better results on average. In part I think this might be because they're taught as they are generally quieter and less desirous of rough-and-tumble (in primary school, by the predominantly female teachers, say) that girls are more studious. Generalising further: boys are thus modelled as either boring swots or good for manual labour (they don't sit still, which for some reason seems to make many female teachers think means they're not intelligent).

[I'm pressing the point probably a bit much I know].


> There's plenty of research on the "entity theory" bias, mostly applied to gender.

Junk science if there ever was any. The effect sizes for these treatments are tiny, if they even replicate it all. It seems like every day now there's a new rebuttal of stereotype threat, implicit association tests, priming, etc.

Just from today: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515089.2017.135... http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~acimpian/reprints/j...


How do you call it junk science?

From your second link, conclusions section:

>Nonetheless, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the tripartite pattern: (1)Although errors, biases, and self-fulfilling prophecies in person perception, are occasionally powerful, on average, they tend to be weak, fragile and fleeting; (2) Perceptions of individuals and groups tend to be at least moderately, and often highly accurate; and (3) Conclusions based on the research on error, bias, and self-fulfilling prophecies routinely overstate their power and pervasiveness, and consistently ignore evidence of accuracy, agreement, and rationality in social perception.

Namely point 1, which points out it is valid science. Point 3 is the criticism that it is vastly overstated, and personally I would add it is used as a political tool far more than it should be. But the science isn't junk.


Do you now of any research on the potential downsides of the opposite of this? I have a pre-teen son whose confidence with-- and enjoyment in-- maths outstrips his ability (although this might change in either direction). He's not cocky about it; he is more like "Damn. Only got a C. Oh well, next time..."

I can't see him hurting himself with maths, but if he decided he's gonna fix something electrical in a few years time, well that could be very bad indeed.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: