# The Moron in Charge of Harvard **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 19, 2005, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518 "2005-01-19T09:45:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/41 "2005-01-19T15:22:42Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Anyone who thinks that an anecdote about his little daughter counts as a legitimate example of serious evidence for innate male/female differences is a pompous and ill-informed asshole. He never said that his example was proof, just an anecdote that leads him to believe that the subject needs to be researched more thoroughly. As for myself, I believe that we spend too much time and money trying to justify stuff that doesn’t matter. I don’t care if a it’s a man or a woman that builds the bridge, just so long as it doesn’t collapse while I’m on it. Women do their things, men do theirs, and I think we should stop being such bitter, whiny twits about the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/42 "2005-01-19T15:53:16Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > Making authoritative statemetns outside his field of expertise is crankish, at least. It’s not outside his area of expertise. He’s an economist. He’s wondering why a certain job in society is not equally filled by men and women, and he’s looking at the root causes of it. That’s what economists do. If someone thinks a “gender studies expert” or “gender anthropologist” has a better chance of getting to the bottom of this than a guy with economics degrees from MIT and Harvard, they’re crazy. A couple more things. Just because people were wrong about bio-determinism in the past doesn’t mean that it’s always wrong. When it’s a fact that women have lower achievement in math & science, you need to start from the ground-up in these things, and not throw away any hypothesis. My own personal experience. . . From what I understand, women in the past may have been discouraged from Math & Science, but that doesn’t immediately explain why it’s a problem today. I was a mathematics undergraduate, and an applied mathematics graduate student. There are women’s mathematics awards, women’s mathematical scoieties, women in engineering advocacy groups, etc. etc. etc. If there is pressure against women going into higher mathematics, it was too subtle to show up on my radar. But, I know its not that simple. So, while I’m willing to keep an open mind on the subject of innate gender differences, I will say this, I never thought there were innate differences at all. At all. Zero, nada, zilch, and if there were, to quote myself, it was too subtle to show up on my radar. I’m pretty sure more women from my undergraduate class went to graduate school than men. On the other hand, none of the women I entered graduate school with finished their Ph.D.s and I don’t know what to say about that. The women who pulled out seemed to do it for the same reasons as me. . .you get up around 28 or so and you start thinking about a family, kids, job, whatever. We all get to the point where that’s a choice you have to make. I wouldn’t doubt for a second that at that point there’s a lot more pressure to leave on the woman than there is on the man. As far as any discernible gender differences in ability, I didn’t notice it all at any level in my education. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/43 "2005-01-19T15:57:50Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > Making authoritative statemetns outside his field of expertise is crankish, at least. But he didn’t make any authoritative statement - he made a suggestion, inviting comment. That’s what this argument hinges on - he is not saying that innate differences _are_ the cause, he says that they are a _possible_ cause that should be studied. This is not a statement that requires evidence, since it is itself a call for evidence. In his own words: > [@](#): > > Dr. Summers said he responded that “I didn’t think for a moment that I had proven anything, but only that these are things that need to be studied.” ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/44 "2005-01-19T16:08:37Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Just as a counterpoint, would any here take offence if he had suggested that innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer men succeed in nursing and childcare careers? Is it the case that roughly 50% of midwives _would_ be male but something is ‘turning them off’, perhaps the minority status itself? Men have not entered into nursing (I am a nurse, female) d/t a variety of factors, most prevalent being the stereotype of all male nurses are homosexual, and/or they couldn’t “handle” med school or similiar “more rigorous” endeavors. The lack of men in childcare just might be d/t to the abysmal pay, low prestige and lack of respect given to that field–and yes, the fear of pedophilia is there, too. I would think that the lack of male midwives (my father is an MD and a male midwife, among other things) is due to the lack of demand for such a thing. Summer makes several mistakes in his assumptions. I am all for researching gender differences and how they impact on ability. But to speak carelessly, and with ignorance, a man in such a position, argues an insensibility that is frightening. His daughter’s play preferences are in not germane to the conference. I am dismayed by the fact that women are not moving upward under his administration. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/45 "2005-01-19T16:20:26Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > I’m just a fool in cyberspace with direct experience of these things. I’ve seen girls who are very able scientists go off to do something else, because “well, science isn’t really a girl’s subject, is it?” to use their words. I’ve been to schools, I’ve talked to students. I’ve talked to very bright male and female students, and whilst the boys are happy enough to do science, a lot of the girls in the science classes, whilst they’re good at it, feel that excelling at science is a source of embarrasment to them. , because its not the done thing for a girl to be good at science, apparantly. That’s where I’m arguing from, why isn’t it the done thing for a girl to be good at science, and what can we (as scientists) do to counteract this? Argue from authority much? ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/46 "2005-01-19T16:26:09Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > Argue from authority much? And what, pray tell, does that mean? ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/47 "2005-01-19T16:28:14Z")
Looking at academic testing and fields of choice in academia, I would be surprised if there weren’t racial differences in how people succeed. If there were testing showing that Latinos or African-Americans scored more poorly in mathematical or scientific types of thinking and analysis, would you all be willing to accept that there were therefore “innate differences”? Or would you be arguing that differences in opportunity, education, and cultural factors play the major role? There are certainly (small) mental differences between various groups. I think study is fine and I don’t think by any means that we should censor these. However, an academic looking at his daughter and applying it to his point is just as irrelevant as any ‘personal experience’. Furthermore, excessively examining differences between the sexes and assuming factors about individuals from that study is sexist and ethically wrong. I am all for study that will help us understand differences in the brain and learning so that we can help all people have equal opportunity to succeed in every field. However, I am leery of people who are quick to point out “differences” when it would seem to limit the opportunities of certain groups. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/48 "2005-01-19T16:33:20Z")
> [@eleanour](#): > > Men have not entered into nursing (I am a nurse, female) d/t a variety of factors, most prevalent being the stereotype of all male nurses are homosexual, and/or they couldn’t “handle” med school or similiar “more rigorous” endeavors. _ie._ some “competitive” element which is more important to men than women? And what if I suggested that this difference might somehow be _innate_, arising from our evolutionary history? > [@](#): > > The lack of men in childcare just might be d/t to the abysmal pay, low prestige and lack of respect given to that field Why should this impact be gender-imbalanced? Surely this would only explain why fewer educated _people_ avoided this field? > [@](#): > > I would think that the lack of male midwives (my father is an MD and a male midwife, among other things) is due to the lack of demand for such a thing. _Why_ is there a lack of demand for male midwives? Can they not be as competent as female mathematicians? > [@gobear](#): > > Show me the evidence and not just supposition. This [study of studies](http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/essayrev/sexdiff.html) I pointed to before is quite compelling: > [@](#): > > Although controversy exists about the magnitude of the sex difference in spatial ability under various testing conditions, reviews by Pool (Eve’s Rib, 1994) and Voyer et al. (Psychological Bulletin 117, 1995) show that on the “purest” spatial measures, such as rotating an imaginary object, or shooting at a moving rather than a stationary target, the sex difference approaches one standard deviation. > —J.P. Rushton and C.D. Ankney, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1996 One entire standard deviation is _very_ difficult to argue with, statistically speaking. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/49 "2005-01-19T16:38:16Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > This [study of studies](http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/essayrev/sexdiff.html) I pointed to before is quite compelling: One entire standard deviation is _very_ difficult to argue with, statistically speaking. No its not. In science, a one standard deviation difference isn’t that statistically significant. Two or three, yes, but one, not so much. Its evidence that at the 68.3% probability level there [i[may\* be some difference in populations/values/whatever, but not complete and utter statistical proof. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/50 "2005-01-19T17:00:27Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > And what, pray tell, does that mean? Go look it up. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/51 "2005-01-19T17:19:14Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > Go look it up. So, you think I was saying “believe me because I’m trained in such and such a field”? I never implied such a thing. I’m not a behavioural scientist, or a gender studies scientist, I’m a physicist. I’m arguing from my own experience. My own experience of going into schools, of teaching. I’m arguing from what others have seen. Fuck, I’m arguing from the experience of my female peers, who were good scientists, but who were put off going into scientific careers. I make no claims whatsoever about being an expert in this field. What I will claim to be, is someone who has experienced the societial pressures that put girls off doing science, and someone who is seeing those same societial pressures at play today, still putting girls off science. I am _not_ claiming to be an expert in this field, far from it. I _am_ however, claiming that I have seen far too many good female scientists scared off the profession, and that that needs to be remedied. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/52 "2005-01-19T17:20:45Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > No its not. In science, a one standard deviation difference isn’t that statistically significant. Two or three, yes, but one, not so much. Its evidence that at the 68.3% probability level there [i[may\* be some difference in populations/values/whatever, but not complete and utter statistical proof. Huh? If the findings are robust to the 90% or even 95% level of confidence, they are _by definition_ significant. Whether one standard deviation matters very much differs among disciplines. I do not thing “significant” means what you think it means. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/53 "2005-01-19T17:24:04Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Huh? If the findings are robust to the 90% or even 95% level of confidence, they are _by definition_ significant. Whether one standard deviation matters very much differs among disciplines. I do not thing “significant” means what you think it means. Fair enough, maybe I’m just imposing my discipline’s definition of “significant” onto another area of research. For that, I apologise. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/54 "2005-01-19T17:43:05Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > This [study of studies](http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/essayrev/sexdiff.html) I pointed to before is quite compelling: One entire standard deviation is _very_ difficult to argue with, statistically speaking. Actually, I would be interested in finding out the _ages_ of the study participants - I assume that they’re all adults. This is just a WAG on my part, but many times I’ve heard that when young children learn they form more new neural connections than adults. Thus it’s much easier for a child under the age of 10 to learn a new language than it is for an adult to do so. And the child that learned a second language will have an easier time of it if they try to learn more languages when they are older. Perhaps social differences in how children learn science and mathematics can lead to the results seen in the study. “The mind is a muscle” yadda yadda… so maybe boys that have learned from a young age that science is a good career and aren’t intimidated by it will grow up to be men who have better spatial reasoning with rotating objects. Basically, I’m just saying that a study showing differences in spatial reasoning in adults doesn’t necessarily mean that the difference is genetic. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/55 "2005-01-19T18:21:41Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > No its not. In science, a one standard deviation difference isn’t that statistically significant. As I’m sure you know, it depends on the sample size. If I guess 52% of coin-tosses correctly for 100 throws, it’s not significant at 1% (or 5%, depending on what level of rigour you’re working at). If I do it for 10,000 throws it most certainkly _is_. I would be very surprised if the peer-reviewed research said there _was_ a significant sex difference in “pure” spatial tests if the sample size didn’t back it up. > [@Waenara](#): > > Actually, I would be interested in finding out the ages of the study participants - I assume that they’re all adults. 13 year olds, I believe, although I believe similar tests show differences even in very young children which surely cannot be down to ‘society’? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/56 "2005-01-19T18:51:44Z")
I’ve always found this kind of discussion interesting, because it’s at the same time so incredibly basic and insulting and important to so many people, and yet at the same time, it really doesn’t matter. I mean, suppose, hypothetically, we came up with some study that proved BEYOND ALL DOUBT that women were 5% “worse” at math and science. So? Does that mean that we should discourage women from being mathematicians and scientists? Would that mean that we would retroactively de-publish every paper that **Angua** has written? What actual practical impact would it have? I mean, only some very small percentage of the smartest people actually end up being mathematicians or scientists, and some proportion of them are women, and if that proportion is 30% (or, for that matter, 70%) instead of 50%, so? As long as no one even THINKS of saying something like “women can NOT be scientists” or “women are NEVER good at math” or “we should not ALLOW women to take upper level math classes because they WILL FAIL”, then who cares? **Angua** is good enough at science to be a good astrophysicist. Which means, on the scale of things, she’s in the top (very small) percentile of all people at astrophysics. Who cares whether she’s in the top (even smaller) percentile of women at astrophyics or not? ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/57 "2005-01-19T19:00:52Z")
My personal view, based on no specific evidence but just my own experience and readings, is that: a) there are real differences, physically and mentally, between the average man and the average woman (although many of them are not terribly significant) b) the statement in a) above has no bearing on the actual abilities of any individual of either sex c) gender-based social pressures and constraints usually have far more impact on individuals than a) or b) ---
**Author:** ![Windwalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/5e9695/32.png) [@Windwalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Windwalker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/58 "2005-01-19T19:04:16Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > There is no innate differnce between men and women in doing math and science. Societal pressures and expectations cause the disparity we see between the academic achievements of the sexes. Sorry, this statement really bothers me in its absolute certainty that an unpleasant idea cannot be true due to its unpleasantness. There might be an innate difference, however un-PC it may be. Boys may have a slightly better innate capacity ON AVERAGE for math and science. Or girls might. Girls may have a slightly better innate capacity ON AVERAGE for languages. Or boys might. Either way, there’s no reason to get all dismissive about it. And to Angua, even if boys were 3% better on average by some rubric, then there will certainly be many girls who are better than most boys; heck, the #1 scientific mind in the world could still easily be a girl given such a difference. In any case, it has not been proven conclusively true in either direction, but the research to this point (pointed to by SentientMeat) suggests there are some innate differences. Big whoop. Let the research continue, and let’s not jump on the poor Harvard president for making reasonable conjectures. Heck, the research might even show that girls have an innate advantage for more things than boys. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/59 "2005-01-19T19:04:27Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > something about the subject? > > **Epi:** _“Males are better at some mental tasks than females and vice versa” > PC police women: Are you saying women are intellectually inferior! Rant Rant Rant_ > > Actually, what the “PC policewomen” and other sensible folks are really saying here is the following: > > 1. What’s the scientific evidence for concluding that there are innate biological differences between males and females in various mental tasks? > > 2. Anyone who thinks that an anecdote about his little daughter counts as a legitimate example of serious evidence for innate male/female differences is a pompous and ill-informed asshole. I am merely commenting on the speed of which a reactionary in any are will lose reading comprehension. Nobody is saying anybody is intellectually inferior or stupid, only suggesting that there are differences in how men and women think and what their strengths are. The **reactionay** , however, is blind to reason, and jumps in screaming about how they are being called inferior, when that is clearly not the case. I personally don’t know, or care on way or the other. I am only making a commentary on how quickly the thin skinned PC police once again lose all reading comprehension skills. That is what is typical. As for this little gem: > [@](#): > > Mr. Summers in 1987 became the first **social scientist** ever to receive the…snip Now correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t this topic be IN this guys field of expertise? He does have his PhD in social science, no? More cherry picking for the reactionaries? It is ok to gloss over facts when one is filled with righteous idignation? ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/60 "2005-01-19T19:12:34Z")
FWIW my sister is nearly done with her PhD in Virology, and excels in both math and science. She is very much my intellectual better in those areas. Of course there will be those better than her, both males and females, and I while I doubt she will ever be the next Gould of her field, she certainly will do good. Anyhow, my little anectdote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518.md?page=4)