- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Well, math is certainly not my forte, but according to Science.....
Scientific Proof:
Women Beat Men at THIS
A mathematical experiment involving 18,000 people in Great Britain has shown that women are far better at instant counting than men.
Specifically, if there are more than five objects, both sexes count at the same speed, but when there are less than five, women have a better instinct than men for counting fast. In mathematical terms, this kind of counting is called "subitizing." Counting that involves numerous objects is called higher level counting.
It was first suggested 50 years ago that the brain has two distinct ways of counting--one for just a few objects and one for more objects. "If I hold up three fingers, most people don't need to count how many there are," lead scientist Brian Butterworth from University of College London told New Scientist. But when that number increases, we need more time to count or calculate the total. Butterworth thinks we use different mechanisms to count small and large numbers, but proving this has been difficult.
The study: Some 18,000 visitors to the @Bristol Science Centre in England participated in the experiment as they walked through a series of interactive exhibits. In one of these, different numbers of dots were displayed on a touch screen. Participants were timed on how fast they calculated the correct number of dots.
The results: When there were less than five dots, women counted them faster. "The differences were small but significant," says lead scientist Brian Butterworth from University of College London told New Scientist, acknowledging that this was not what they thought would happen. And gender wasn't the only factor that affected subitizing and higher level counting. When the dots were on the left side of the screen, participants were able to count them 6 percent faster than when they were presented on the right--but only when there were five or more dots, reports New Scientist.
So it would seem from this that our brains deal differently with small and large numbers. While we seem to have an automatic sense of two and three, it is much harder to instantly distinguish 9 or 16 or 23.
The research is not definitive and must be performed by others in a more controlled setting than a museum. "The factor may not be gender," Stanislas Dehaene, a scientist at INSERM in Paris, France, explained to New Scientist. "It could be that girls going to the museum are better at this than average girls." However, he insists that the very existence of a factor--no matter what it is--supports the idea that there are two ways of counting.
How about that?
Scientific Proof:
Women Beat Men at THIS
A mathematical experiment involving 18,000 people in Great Britain has shown that women are far better at instant counting than men.
Specifically, if there are more than five objects, both sexes count at the same speed, but when there are less than five, women have a better instinct than men for counting fast. In mathematical terms, this kind of counting is called "subitizing." Counting that involves numerous objects is called higher level counting.
It was first suggested 50 years ago that the brain has two distinct ways of counting--one for just a few objects and one for more objects. "If I hold up three fingers, most people don't need to count how many there are," lead scientist Brian Butterworth from University of College London told New Scientist. But when that number increases, we need more time to count or calculate the total. Butterworth thinks we use different mechanisms to count small and large numbers, but proving this has been difficult.
The study: Some 18,000 visitors to the @Bristol Science Centre in England participated in the experiment as they walked through a series of interactive exhibits. In one of these, different numbers of dots were displayed on a touch screen. Participants were timed on how fast they calculated the correct number of dots.
The results: When there were less than five dots, women counted them faster. "The differences were small but significant," says lead scientist Brian Butterworth from University of College London told New Scientist, acknowledging that this was not what they thought would happen. And gender wasn't the only factor that affected subitizing and higher level counting. When the dots were on the left side of the screen, participants were able to count them 6 percent faster than when they were presented on the right--but only when there were five or more dots, reports New Scientist.
So it would seem from this that our brains deal differently with small and large numbers. While we seem to have an automatic sense of two and three, it is much harder to instantly distinguish 9 or 16 or 23.
The research is not definitive and must be performed by others in a more controlled setting than a museum. "The factor may not be gender," Stanislas Dehaene, a scientist at INSERM in Paris, France, explained to New Scientist. "It could be that girls going to the museum are better at this than average girls." However, he insists that the very existence of a factor--no matter what it is--supports the idea that there are two ways of counting.
How about that?
