[BRussell]

OK, he didn't quite say that. But he went to a conference entitled "Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and their Science & Engineering Careers" and suggested that there may be biologically-based cognitive differences between men and women. Haha, smart move. NY Times article.

The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, who offended some women at an academic conference last week by suggesting that innate differences in sex may explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers, stood by his comments yesterday but said he regretted if they were misunderstood.

I like that he regretted it if someone else misunderstood him.

The reactions of some were pretty strong:

Nancy Hopkins, a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who once led an investigation of sex discrimination there that led to changes in hiring and promotion, walked out midway through Dr. Summers's remarks.

"When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," Dr. Hopkins said.

When you can't consider a hypothesis because it makes you physically ill, I think your "Dr." should be taken away from you.

[Chuckit]

Agreed. If I were a college president, I'd be saying this kind of stuff every week just to weed out the intelectually lazy.

[christ]

He's right, there may be. (not likely, but still possible)

He cannot be allowed to investigate this hypothesis, though, because it may turn out to be true. That would be unacceptable, and so he cannot be allowed to investigate. QED.

It's the same logic that got Galileo into so much trouble - a theory is politically unacceptable, so it can't be right.

And pi is 3.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by christ:
And pi is 3.

I'm not a girl, but isn't pi 3?

[Chuckit]

Uh...it's more than 3.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally posted by christ:
He's right, there may be. (not likely, but still possible)

He cannot be allowed to investigate this hypothesis, though, because it may turn out to be true. That would be unacceptable, and so he cannot be allowed to investigate. QED.

The counterpoint to that argument is: at what point is a theory so thoroughly discredited that it no longer becomes appropriate to continually propose it?

Not saying we're there yet with the male/female math score thing, but a similar question could be raised with (for instance) forms of creationism. However, IIRC, female math scores are consistent with or higher than males right up until middle school, at which point they drop off precipitously. That (among other things) is what's let authors to conclude that the difference is sociological, not biological.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
The counterpoint to that argument is: at what point is a theory so thoroughly discredited that it no longer becomes appropriate to continually propose it?

I don't think that's really the counterpoint. The objection here was moral (or at least social), not academic.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Uh...it's more than 3.

Is it more than 3.1? I guess I just don't get the reference he was making.

[NYCFarmboy]

it is a politcally correct world.

whatever the truth is is not allowed. only what the left views as "the truth" is to be taught...i.e. lower math tests in Massachusetts because math teachers there are instructed to teach diversity rather than math.

I hate to point out the obvious but the answer is pretty simple.

men have bigger brains than women.....that is a simple fact of life just because men tend to be larger than women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/302152.stm

http://www.brainplace.com/bp/malefemaledif/default.asp

men have 4% more brain cells than women, and about 100 grams more of brain tissue.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
I don't think that's really the counterpoint. The objection here was moral (or at least social), not academic.

Well, the objectors believe that the statement is false, and also encourages unfair prejudice toward women. Hence, there is definitely moral content to their statement.

My point was that people, for instance, who suggest that black people are less intelligent than whites are recognized as racists. Even though the statement is just an assertion of a fact, which may be true or false, it's racist to say it because we already know it to be false almost to a certainty. Saying something like that, then, isn't science -- it's just an attempt to legitimize racism.

Nor do I think we can interpret Summers' commentary as simply unbiased scientific commentary -- he openly admitted that he was trying to stir controversy, so he was aware of how threatening that statement would be toward women. The context of the statement does matter.

There is an extent to which Political Correctness has swallowed our ability to recognize certain unpleasant truths. While I don't think that this is one of them, I do think that simply ignoring these facts isn't valuable. At the same time, it's important that anyone who wants to say something like this recognize the inherent politics of what he's saying and try to adapt to it. Did Summers do that?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
The counterpoint to that argument is: at what point is a theory so thoroughly discredited that it no longer becomes appropriate to continually propose it?

Not saying we're there yet with the male/female math score thing, but a similar question could be raised with (for instance) forms of creationism. However, IIRC, female math scores are consistent with or higher than males right up until middle school, at which point they drop off precipitously. That (among other things) is what's let authors to conclude that the difference is sociological, not biological.

I think the better analogy is socialization ~ creationism. Socialization feels good - we don't want to believe that any difference between people are innate, at least not in our liberal societies. To not even consider that there are biologically-based cognitive differences between the sexes also feels to me like creationism.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think the better analogy is socialization ~ creationism. Socialization feels good - we don't want to believe that any difference between people are innate, at least not in our liberal societies. To not even consider that there are biologically-based cognitive differences between the sexes also feels to me like creationism.

I agree -- sociological explanations tend to prevail these days, whether they work or not.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Is it more than 3.1? I guess I just don't get the reference he was making.

There's an urban legend that [insert state here] once tried to declare that pi equals exactly 3 to make some calculations in the Bible work out correctly.

[finboy]

Originally posted by christ:

And pi is 3.

For the poor of the world, 3 is all they can afford.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
There's an urban legend that [insert state here] once tried to declare that pi equals exactly 3 to make some calculations in the Bible work out correctly.

OK. It sounded vaguely familiar, but I didn't know for sure what it was referring to.

[SimpleLife]

I think there is a good case for women being better at math than men.

They can count to 2 at the very least and can experience the concept of zero when confronted to men.

On the other hand, men are limited to the number one, which becomes more obvious with the proximity of women, regardless of their number.

[christ]

Originally posted by BRussell:
OK. It sounded vaguely familiar, but I didn't know for sure what it was referring to.

This is what I was referring to specifically, but generally the practise of politicians/ sociologists/ do-gooders to mess with things that aren't tractable to political correctness. Defining pi to be three does not effect the ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a circle: equally saying that girls are as good at math as boys and not allowing discussion of any theory (indeed being sick at the thought of any such theory) that might discredit that, is just plain bad science.

Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
The counterpoint to that argument is: at what point is a theory so thoroughly discredited that it no longer becomes appropriate to continually propose it?

How can the theory be discredited without investigation?

Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
people, for instance, who suggest that black people are less intelligent than whites are recognized as racists

Which is a sad indictment of society If we turn it around to save controversy - it is believed that asians make better learners than caucasians - why should it be racist or sickening to investigate this? Things don't become 'well-known' or 'right' simply by because the alternative is politically unacceptable.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
it is a politcally correct world.

whatever the truth is is not allowed. only what the left views as "the truth" is to be taught...i.e. lower math tests in Massachusetts because math teachers there are instructed to teach diversity rather than math.

I hate to point out the obvious but the answer is pretty simple.

men have bigger brains than women.....that is a simple fact of life just because men tend to be larger than women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/302152.stm

http://www.brainplace.com/bp/malefemaledif/default.asp

men have 4% more brain cells than women, and about 100 grams more of brain tissue.

No, that's not the point. While it's true that men's brains are a little bigger, it's also true that women's brains make up for it with a more complex structuring.

As far as I have followed the scientist's results, they seem to hint at the fact that women and men are good in different subjects. Usually men's brains are better at rational thinking, espescially geographical modelling, better at imagining how a 3d-object turns around and other trajections, while women's brains are usually better at emotional sensibility as well as communicative tasks and at multitasking! Women usually can do numerous things at once without losing a beat, for example talking while working something complex with their hands.

Taliesin

[Love Calm Quiet]

Most importantly, it WOULDN'T MATTER if *on average* one gender were demonstrated to have greater ability at something. The key thing is that any individual be given an impartial assessment of where S/HE falls in the curve. Poppycock statements such as the Dr. made are ungrounded in sophisticated science and irrelevant to how policies should be developed.

On the issue of DIFFERENT AREAS of ability... note the Harvard President's display of rather low political and social abilities when he opened his mouth on this one.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Love Calm Quiet:
On the issue of DIFFERENT AREAS of ability... note the Harvard President's display of rather low political and social abilities when he opened his mouth on this one.

What do you expect? He was Clinton's Treasury Secretary.



Actually, I think Summers is the kind of breath of fresh air academia needs to shake up and challenge some of their paralyzing orthodies. In particular, he has been a leader on the ROTC on campus issue.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by christ:

How can the theory be discredited without investigation?

Good point. One of the big selling points of scientific theories is that they can be tested, retested, re-proved, and amended if necessary. For example, Newton's simple equation of gravity really only worked on earth, in its prevailing gravitational environment. It had to be expanded to a more encompassing theory that worked everywhere including on earth. In other words, it is very UN-scientific to let a "discredited" theory to be left alone to stand as dogma.

Originally posted by Taliesin:
No, that's not the point. While it's true that men's brains are a little bigger, it's also true that women's brains make up for it with a more complex structuring.

Strangely similar to the penis vs clitoris. On is larger, but one is more "refined" However, they both apparently work just fine

I don't know why people would get so bent out of shape if they found propensities in cognition between the sexes. To say that men are better at math than women isn't to say that no woman can possibly be good at math or that huge numbers of women aren't better at math than the "average" guy.

Having said all of the above, the real social question isn't "are men better at a, b, and c and women better at x, y, and z?". It's "why do 'men's' propensities almost categorically command higher wages than those of women ?" Mathematics-based skills command better wages on average than other types of skills in this society. That is an objective fact (at least in the last several decades). The interesting point that "liberals" make is that men's skills have always commanded a premium over women's skills historically . Basically, whatever men typically do gets paid more than whatever women typically do. In centuries past, being part of the clergy was the way to have power in society ... and women were explicitly barred from this occupation. So, it ends up being and chicken-or-egg type issue. Are women today paid less because they tend to be better suited for lower-paid occupations... or are certain occupations paid less because they are "women's work". Are math based occupations paid more because they are "men's work" ? We all seem in agreement that discovering that there may be cognitive differences between the sexes is a pretty innocuous thing. But we've all ignored what this insinuates ... that men "deserve" to be paid more because, surprise surprise, they happen to have the "best" or "more valuable" cognitive propensities. Can anyone prove that men's skills are "worth more" on an objective scale ??

[chris v]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Uh...it's more than 3.

You gotta make thhe Pi higher.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What do you expect? He was Clinton's Treasury Secretary.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What do you expect? He was Clinton's Treasury Secretary.



Actually, I think Summers is the kind of breath of fresh air academia needs to shake up and challenge some of their paralyzing orthodies. In particular, he has been a leader on the ROTC on campus issue.

He also got in trouble over criticizing Cornel West for not being professorial enough, who subsequently left and went to Princeton.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
He also got in trouble over criticizing Cornel West for not being professorial enough, who subsequently left and went to Princeton.

Oh the horror.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by christ:
Defining pi to be three does not effect the ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a circle

"affect".

[Timo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
When you can't consider a hypothesis because it makes you physically ill, I think your "Dr." should be taken away from you.

To be fair to Dr. Hopkins, you left out this part:

Dr. Summers said, "I was trying to provoke discussion, and I certainly believe that there's been some move in the research away from believing that all these things are shaped only by socialization."

It was at this point in his presentation that Dr. Hopkins walked out, and shortly thereafter, Dr. Denton told the Harvard president that she believed his assertions had been contradicted by research materials presented at the conference. 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."

emphasis added

(Dr. Denton is another presenter.)

So Summers walks in at lunch with his hunch that was contradicted by a morning's worth presentations. Sounds to me that Summers is out of his depth; certainly he could have tailored his remarks to account for the morning presentations, but he didn't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/na...18harvard.html

[Timo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm not a girl, but isn't pi 3?

Joke, right? I don't understand how it is funny.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
"affect".

That's OK, boys' brains can't do verbal expression.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Timo:
To be fair to Dr. Hopkins, you left out this part:
emphasis added

(Dr. Denton is another presenter.)

So Summers walks in at lunch with his hunch that was contradicted by a morning's worth presentations. Sounds to me that Summers is out of his depth; certainly he could have tailored his remarks to account for the morning presentations, but he didn't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/na...18harvard.html

His comment seemed very innocuous to me to provoke that kind of reaction. It sounds to me like she was saying that it's not only impossible that any gender differences in cognition could be biological, but that if you even suggest studying that possibility, you're sexist.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Timo:
Joke, right? I don't understand how it is funny.

Well I'll be here all week.

Do you mean the pi = 3 part or the girl part?

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by BRussell:
His comment seemed very innocuous to me to provoke that kind of reaction. It sounds to me like she was saying that it's not only impossible that any gender differences in cognition could be biological, but that if you even suggest studying that possibility, you're sexist.

agreed.

also, cornel west's departure was not lamented by all, as his af-am studies classes were iirc a large reason of why harvard developed a reputation for grade inflation. (which, incidentally, is totally unfair, since the patterns are radically different depending on which department you surveyed.)

[Timo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
His comment seemed very innocuous to me to provoke that kind of reaction. It sounds to me like she was saying that it's not only impossible that any gender differences in cognition could be biological, but that if you even suggest studying that possibility, you're sexist.

Dunno. Wasn't there. But this:

Catherine Didion, a director of the International Network of Women Engineers and Scientists, said she was "surprised by the provocation in tone and manner" of Dr. Summers's remarks.

"Initially all of the questions were from women, and I think there was definitely a gender component to how people interpreted his remarks," Dr. Didion said. "Male colleagues didn't say much afterwards and later said they felt his comments were being blown out of context. Female colleagues were on the whole surprised by his comments."

Certainly if there are "biologically-based cognitive differences between men and women" (and why wouldn't there be) the more interesting questions might start with Didion's observation on how Summer's comments were received vis-à-vis the genders.

[Timo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Well I'll be here all week.

Do you mean the pi = 3 part or the girl part?

I don't...

check please!

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
While it's true that men's brains are a little bigger, it's also true that women's brains make up for it with a more complex structuring.

As far as I have followed the scientist's results, they seem to hint at the fact that women and men are good in different subjects.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
No, that's not the point. While it's true that men's brains are a little bigger, it's also true that women's brains make up for it with a more complex structuring.

As far as I have followed the scientist's results, they seem to hint at the fact that women and men are good in different subjects. Usually men's brains are better at rational thinking, espescially geographical modelling, better at imagining how a 3d-object turns around and other trajections, while women's brains are usually better at emotional sensibility as well as communicative tasks and at multitasking! Women usually can do numerous things at once without losing a beat, for example talking while working something complex with their hands.

Taliesin

that is not the point? there is a scientific difference between men & women's brains.

In both size and structure. It is just a fact.

I didn't say that was bad did I?

Thank the Lord Men & Women are very different!

[Curios Meerkat]

It seemed like you implied men are more intelligent than women... If that is not what you think, say so.

[christ]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
"affect".

*Steps outside to shoot himself*

*misses*

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
It seemed like you implied men are more intelligent than women... If that is not what you think, say so.

Just pointing out a obvious fact about the size of the brains being different.

Is that heresy?

[Curios Meerkat]

Heresy? You're free to think whatever you want. What it's not yet clear is:

Do you think men are more intelligent than women?

YES or NO will suffice...

[christ]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
Heresy? You're free to think whatever you want. What it's not yet clear is:

Do you think men are more intelligent than women?

YES or NO will suffice...

I would suggest that more research is required, if it doesn't make you sick to think about it ...

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Just pointing out a obvious fact about the size of the brains being different.

Is that heresy?

One of my teachers mentionned to me that they had once found a guy with a brain evaluated to be of less than 1 kg. The guy was doing his graduate studies in math and was not considered to be some kind of idiot savant.

The whole discussion is kinda useless because we digress on speculations.

So what if women's brains are different; are they that different? How do we know? How much difference is there? is it worth it to spend millions on a topic that will not change much our nature afterwards?

Socialization has a very important impact; I have a cousin who did straight A's as a graduate student in Mathematics and she is now home making babies (her third just got born las Summer). There are plenty of women who may not have the same drive and yet, there are others that have a very strong drive towards power, simply because they were educated in perspective of relationships.

Also, it is a typical male issue that performance in competition with siblings of same-sex (and especially when confronted to the other gender) is key to their behavior and certainly has a role to play when we look at how people have to fight one another for research grants.

The whole issue can be reduced to a simple drive that manifests itself differently in men and women. Men compete, women cooperate. Of course, this is a very broad generation, just has the one that would require a biological explanation for girls not attending in high numbers science departments.

Although it would be interesting what cross-countries studies have to say about this.

It is my opinion that this issue is more a political one, and may feed an agenda that is to the interest of those in the apparent lead.

But Occam's razor is not only for beards, it can be used for the legs as well...

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
Heresy? You're free to think whatever you want. What it's not yet clear is:

Do you think men are more intelligent than women?

YES or NO will suffice...

This is transferring the debate elsewhere.

Being good at science cannot be a criteria to compare men and women with the perspective of intelligence.

Intelligence is quite a concept that needs much better understanding than simple IQ measurements and access (and success) in the sciences.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Timo:
Dunno. Wasn't there. But this:

Maybe he was trying intentionally to be provocative. I doubt it, but who knows.

About this brain size issue being discussed: It's a little misleading, because men are larger than women, and when you equate for the size difference between men and women, there is no brain size difference.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Maybe he was trying intentionally to be provocative. I doubt it, but who knows.

About this brain size issue being discussed: It's a little misleading, because men are larger than women, and when you equate for the size difference between men and women, there is no brain size difference.

furthermore brain size does not correlate with intelligence. period. "the mismeasure of man" has a good discussion on this.

[Kodachrome]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
furthermore brain size does not correlate with intelligence. period. "the mismeasure of man" has a good discussion on this.

false


brain size does correlate with IQ.


http://www.cpa.ca/Psynopsis/petertxt.htm is a link that shows how the pc crowd is trying to dance around this study because it is not politically correct to state the obvious.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
furthermore brain size does not correlate with intelligence. period. "the mismeasure of man" has a good discussion on this.

Yeah. I don't particularly like some of Gould's writing on those issues, but it really doesn't make sense to think there's a correlation between intelligence and brain size within a species. Now penis size, that's a different story...

[edit] I'll have to look at Kodachrome's link. I'm pretty sure it's not a well-accepted idea and even that article looks like there are some contradictions.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by Kodachrome:
false

brain size does correlate with IQ.

http://www.cpa.ca/Psynopsis/petertxt.htm is a link that shows how the pc crowd is trying to dance around this study because it is not politically correct to state the obvious.

interesting. the correlation claimed there is weak (.4 when measured with mri, .2 when measured via skull size), and i bet it's somewhat of a fringe view.

on the other hand, i should sit back and accept this research at face value, being east asian/white and possessing a 7 1/2 hat size

btw gould's argument was based on posthumous analysis of various people accepted to be "geniuses", and several people that you and i would agree were quite sharp had small heads and brains. so hope remains for the slim-headed, especially given the weakness of the correlation.

another thought, from http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:m...y+iq&hl=en : "Matching Blacks and Whites for IQ eliminates the average difference in head size, but matching the groups on head size does not equalize their IQs. This shows that brain size is only one, though a very important one, of a number of brain factors involved in IQ."

[deej5871]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
So what if women's brains are different; are they that different? How do we know? How much difference is there? is it worth it to spend millions on a topic that will not change much our nature afterwards?

I think that any differences may be important, at least medically. Say you're getting neurosurgery and the process has to be changed for men and women based on the differences. Or possibly drugs that would cure or prevent Alzheimer's or some other brain problem might only work on women and have very bad side effects on men (or vice versa) because of these differences. Besides, there are other subjects that money is wasted studying that will have no practical applications, or, at least, no possible applications are known yet. They serve the purpose to simply expand our knowledge and understanding of how things work, and that's always something that should be encouraged in my mind.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by deej5871:
I think that any differences may be important, at least medically. Say you're getting neurosurgery and the process has to be changed for men and women based on the differences. Or possibly drugs that would cure or prevent Alzheimer's or some other brain problem might only work on women and have very bad side effects on men (or vice versa) because of these differences. Besides, there are other subjects that money is wasted studying that will have no practical applications, or, at least, no possible applications are known yet. They serve the purpose to simply expand our knowledge and understanding of how things work, and that's always something that should be encouraged in my mind.

So far, there is only one medication under study (a type of pain killer) that could possibly have to be administered according to gender. But the researchers added that at this point, any pain killer is just as efficient.

As to expand our knowledge, someone will have to prove that the balance between benefits and costs in exploring issues that create differences amongst people.

So far, simple observation of appearances has been enough to trigger genocides. So what's next?