An almost incomprehensible barrenness

From Ordering History Through the Timeline by Eugenio Garibaldi and Pietro Garibaldi. Abstract:

History is a key subject in most educational system in Western countries, and there is ongoing concern about the the degree of historical knowledge and historical sensibility that students obtain after their high school graduation. This paper proposes a simple linetime test for quantitatively measuring a human sense of history. The paper reports the results of the test administered to approximately 250 Italian university students. There are two empirical results. First, students have remarkable difficulties in ordering basic events over the time line, with the largest mistakes observed around the events that took place in the Middle Age. Second, the paper uncovers a statistical regularity in the test performance across gender, with female subjects featuring a statistical significant and quantitatively sizable downward score. The gender difference is surprising, since existing literature on differences in cognitive abilities across gender suggests that female subjects outperform male subjects in memory related tests. The paper shows also that the gender difference survives to a variety of sub periods, and falls by only 20 percent when we distinguish between violent and non violent events.

Very interesting and worth reading in whole. 244 Italian university students. Too small a population to be really robust but still a moderate size.

The absolute difference between the sexes is quite large in terms of accuracy of knowledge of timeline events; the average male scoring 50.9 versus the average female scoring only 21.7.

I have a great love for history and these numbers seem very low but are consistent with most surveys I see. I may think history is both interesting and valuable but clearly most people find it reasonably dispensable. Perhaps because a knowledge of history is of strategic benefit rather than tactically beneficial.

By which I mean, a reading of history might allow you to create mental models of cause and effect which are beneficial in the long run but which have little to do with the range of skills and behaviors you need for quotidian success. The only good test of this supposition would be to take a large random sample of people and measure whether there is a statistical correlation between historical knowledge and life outcomes and then explore whether that correlation might be causal.

This study does not answer that question and I am unaware of any such study.

The researchers can not explain the sizable history knowledge gap between the sexes. I am guessing that it is related to the much researched, and highly debated, phenomenon of empathizing versus systematizing.

The empathizing–systemizing (E–S) theory suggests that people may be classified on the basis of their scores along two dimensions: empathizing (E) and systemizing (S). It measures a person's strength of interest in empathy (the ability to identify and understand the thoughts and feelings of others and to respond to these with appropriate emotions) and a person's strength of interest in systems (in terms of the drive to analyse or construct them).

According to the originator of the hypothesis, Simon Baron-Cohen, the E-S theory has been tested using the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ), developed by him and colleagues, and generates five different 'brain types' depending on the presence or absence of discrepancies between their scores on E or S. E-S profiles show that the profile E>S is more common in females than in males, and the profile S>E is more common in males than in females. Baron-Cohen and associates say the E-S theory is a better predictor than gender of who chooses STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). The E-S theory has been extended into the 'Extreme Male Brain' (EMB) theory of autism and Asperger syndrome, which are associated in the E-S theory with below-average empathy and average or above-average systemizing.

Just speculation though.

The other thing which caught my eye was this evidence around home book ownership. The researchers, trying to identify variables about the test subjects asked questions about grades, parental education attainment, nature of schooling, etc. Among the questions was one, how many books do they have in there home. The answer is distressing. On average, they report 2.9 books in their home. Across the 244 students who participated in the test, this would imply a total of 708 books in their collective homes.

I have seen similar numbers for the US, the UK, Germany. It is not a surprise but an interesting data point. Interesting, but too me, almost inconceivable. I know I have a much higher than average interest in books, both the acquisition of and the reading of. But still. I have more than 700 books just in my home office. The number in the home is far greater.

3 books. An almost incomprehensible barrenness.

Other folks, other ways.