I think this may be the most offensive thing I’ve read on the board in many a moon.
Are you an expert in this field?
What this sort of hypothesis requires is study, not derision. Women have been bit players in high tech fields for the entire existance of high tech. Is it nature or nurture? You claim that you want to understand and fix the problem, but when someone throws out a hypothesis you don’t like, you hammer the guy. That doesn’t help understand or fix anything.
If it is partially nature driven, then a series of studies will bear that out, if it is not, those studies will show that as well. Then at least you have a framework to discuss the issue. Without, you’re slamming your head against a wall. Disappointed with the numbers of women in tech fields, you try to ‘nurture’ them into tech and it doesn’t work as well as you want. Maybe you’re trying to nurture them into a field that nature makes unattractive to them. You don’t know unless you ask the question.
The first of these two quotes is probably a lame attempt at humor. Tasteless, but this board has seen worse. It still makes you look like a moron, Trunk.
The second, however, is patently moronic. If that’s what you think is acceptable discourse, you really need to revise your worldview.
As for the issues raised by the President of Harvard, I don’t dismiss out of hand the idea that men and women may be genetically predisposed to do better and worse at different fields of study. I do, however, think his statements at that gathering were out of place, out of line, and more than a little offensive. The proper way to go about this is to do a real study, something worthy of a peer-reviewed journal where it can be debated in a rational way, instead of throwing up random comments without any pretense at academic rigour or even basic tact.
No. Are you? Why should there be a difference in intellectual capacity between men and women?
Its a hypothesis that’s been doing the rounds for a very very long time. The sort of timescales which mean that there should be some sort of evidence to prove or disprove it.
Yes, I am rather annoyed with him, but not because of what he said was distasteful to me, but rather because he is in a high profile position, and that sort of throwaway comment from someone in that sort of position has the potential to essentially undermine the concerted efforts of a lot of people. There is a lot of work and effort going into this here in the UK. Addressing both questions – why do women not want to study science in the first place, and what causes them to drop out once they’ve started a scientific career – link. These are not easy questions to answer. The evidence does seem to suggest that girls are interested in science, but something turns them off.
So, those of us in scientific fields are freaks of nature? Gee. Thanks. :rolleyes:
ahem I believe this part has been covered.
From the sounds of it, this was exactly the right place for this sort of thing. It seems the only thing Summers is guilty of is not realizing how the PC Police were going to react to this statement. The bastard. :rolleyes:
Do you really think that you are more of an academic than the president of Harvard just because he’s currently an administrator? Do you think your one or two papers compare to his record just because of this? I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that you’re new to academia–a graduate student, right? Perhaps a first- or second-year faculty member?
Presidents (and believe me, I’ve got no love for administrators either) almost always rise through the ranks of the faculty into administration. Let’s check out Dr. Summers’ biography:
http://www.president.harvard.edu/biography/
To summarize:
- B.S. Economics (1975), MIT
- Ph.D. (1982), Harvard
- Assistant Professor, MIT, 1979-1982
- Associate Professor, MIT, 1982
- Professor, Harvard, 1983 (with tenure, no small feat at Harvard)
And so on. The link is up there if you wish to continue reading his credentials past 1987, which document his eventual shift from academia to politics (including Secretary of the Treasury in 1999) and back to academia as an administrator. But the bottom line is that I seriously doubt that your distinguished publishing history matches his in any way, shape, or form; you are going to have to try and find a new line of attack.
Actually, innate differences in intellect occur on quite a number of levels and in quite broad areas. For example, males typically do better at mentally rotating shapes than female. To assume that such things would have no effect whatsoever on the abiliity to perform a complex a task as mathematics is ignorant of modern sciobiology works.
Acknowledging the effect doesn’t mean that more should be done to remove prejudices in the workplace or to encourage girls to have potential to pursue a career in Science. But refusing to acknowledge it just because it doesn’t fit a PC stereotype is simply not how science works.
Fuck no. I know that he is an academic. And probably a very good one at that. All respect is due to him. I am well aware of how the university system works, well aware, thank you very much.
I was merely responding to the comment that I have published papers, next time I won’t.
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?
Oh, for Pete’s sake! I’m sure Angua is very intelligent. But I can’t imagine how that relates to how she compares to Lawrence Summers (otherwise known as the President of Harvard). She could be more intelligent. She could be less. She could be the same as. But if the yardstick you’re using is academic recognition, let’s keep in mind that unless the economics departments of Harvard, MIT, and the Quarterly Journal of Economics are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to promote mediocraty in their field, then his academic credentials are quite above board.
In other words, you are woefully mistaken that the presidency of a university is merely a political position. In some cases it is, and in my experience, the institution is usually fairly forthright about defining the roles and expectations of such. In many cases, the president of a university is fully expected to have demonstrated excellence in his or her academic field, and all that implies, including recognition in peer-reviewed journals.
Of course not, I’m just some fool in cyberspace. However, I’m not discounting someone’s hypothesis just because I don’t agree with it. I’m keeping an open mind, you are not.
My comment should have been directed at Derleth, not you. I note that you were merely replying to his innane comment and never said such a thing and apologize.
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?
GeoDude – no problem.
The unspoken idea in this thread that the president of Harvard cannot also be a crank is quite touching in its naivete. A good rule of thumb is that one should never take an academic at his or her word when he or she is pontificating outside of his or her specialty.
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. Despite the propensity of certain men to think with their dicks, having one doesn’t confer extra brainpower.
“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
:rolleyes:
Typical
The doing, I’d agree. The choosing? (Might measurable differences in spatial ability manifest themselves thus?)
Noam Chomsky, take note.
I think the idea is that he can’t be dismissed as a crank merely for suggesting one possible cause of gender gaps, since, after all, examining all possible causes for an observation is pretty much what academics do. If he rejected outright evidence contradicting his suggestion, then he’d be a crank (or at least a rubbish scientist), but no-one has said that he did this.
And you’re so sure of that that you will reject a priori any suggestion that there might be any biological cause whatsoever? I’ll happily agree that social factors are, in my view, the overwhelming contributory cause of the gender inequality, but it strikes me that your assertion above just isn’t backed up by evidence (nor is it refuted, of course). Shalmanese has already given an example of one cognitive task in which research suggests an innate performance difference exists - can you really so confidently state that hundreds of thousands of years of selective pressure on different gender roles has somehow left no impression on our mental aptitudes?
Note that none of the above implies that women are inferior at any given task - it may well be that study would show an innate superiority, indicating that we have an even greater social problem than previously thought. But how will we ever know if we storm out of meetings at the very thought?
Making authoritative statemetns outside his field of expertise is crankish, at least.
Where did I say that? Oh, right, I didn;t. Show me a biological link that indicates that women have less mathematical ability than men, and we’ll talk. So far, the hisotry of biodeterminisn used to keep wqomen down has been demonstrated to be false, foer example, the idea that women have less emotional resilience than men and thus are unfit for management roles is total BS).
Show me the evidence and not just supposition.
Note that none of the above implies that women are inferior at any given task - it may well be that study would show an innate superiority, indicating that we have an even greater social problem than previously thought. But how will we ever know if we storm out of meetings at the very thought?
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that gender differences in achievement in math and sciences are deserving of more study. It’s also perfectly reasonable to keep an open mind about whether innate biological differences might play a role in this phenomenon. I don’t think that PC requires us to reject out of hand any possibility that males and females can have significant cognitive differences stemming from biological differences.
What is completely ludicrous in its complacent asshattery, however, is the suggestion that an anecdote about an individual little girl naming her toy trucks provides any scientific evidence whatsoever about innate gender differences:
What the heck is any sensible person supposed to view this as an “example” of? Clearly Prof. Summers appears to think it counts as an “example” of evidence for innate, biological gender differences, but that sort of feckless reasoning would get any newbie ripped a new one here at the Straight Dope.
For Og’s sake, if you want to draw conclusions about biological gender differences and their effects on behavior or aptitude for certain subjects, you need to design some pretty careful and complicated experiments. You don’t just pull out of your Nixon an anecdote about how your little girl played with trucks in a way that you wouldn’t expect a little boy to play with them, and think that contributes anything to the discussion.
Obviously, he needs to come up with a way of being provocative that doesn’t make him look like such an idiot, or perhaps just give up on being provocative and settle for not being stupid. And the “economist” bit brings up another issue:
Why is a bunch of economists being assembled to talk about women and minorities in science and engineering? What do they know about it? Why is this being discussed by economists rather than by scientists and engineers themselves, along with gender anthropologists, behavioral scientists, and other people who might reasonably be expected to know 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:
-
What’s the scientific evidence for concluding that there are innate biological differences between males and females in various mental tasks?
-
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.