Recently this story was reported extensively in the media. It made me think of how often certain topics of study are actually discouraged to the point of being taboo. In this case, Summers, the president of Harvard was asking a valid question: Can differences between men and women’s performance in science and math careers be attributable in part to innate differences between the sexes. The mere suggestion that the difference could be attributable to something outside of socialization produced an uproar.

Question for Debate:

(1) Why did his comments provoke such an uproar?
(2) Was the uproar justified? If so, why? If not, why not?

It is definitely one of the paradoxes of modern liberal social thought that some freedom of expression is not considered as equal as others. Of course, when thinking of free speech, we must remember that freedom of speech as not the same thing as freedom from the consequences of our speech.

There are some third rail issues and the president of Harvard has touched on one, hence the response. The liberal concept is that any type of individual has the potential of performing any type of task. It is also is that discrimination plays a leading role in hindering members of certain groups from attaining equal accomplishments to other groups.

There is a type of thought police in our world and I am not whole-heartedly opposed to it (although at its worst it brings out the blatant hypocrisy of my side of the political aisle) It is derided as being PC. Don't talk about the minorities, the poor, or the marginalized in a way that suggests that they deserve their plight or lack the abilities of other groups.

Implied in this way of thinking is that the haves work to keep out the have nots. Men in power try to keep men in power. Whites in power work to keep white faces in the best slots. Christians in society try to keep a Christian message in society. In this the real obstacle to many people is that the biases and prejudices in the system must be balanced out to give a fair shake to all in the job market. The presumption is that there is damaging racial, cultural, and gender discrimination in our society and it creates glass ceilings that keep people from getting their just rewards in their professions.

Now to the questions.

(1) Why did his comments provoke such an uproar?


from the link in the original post

First there is going to be a sensitive response to any university executive officer making comments that seem to further the idea that women are not as capable as men in filling the prestigious positions of that school.

Second, Harvard is not just any university, it is THE most prestigious university in the country and from its halls much of the prevailing ideas in our society have been generated. So when a harvard president has a dubious record on hiring females under his tenure AND he makes comments that seem to imply that women are genetically less capable of holding certain jobs than men there is going to be an uproar. If one is to make such a claim from such a position of power one better have dotted one's i's and crossed one's t's.

In reality the discrepancy between male and female PhD's in fields such as physics and engineering has not been nailed down to one particular cause. But in perusing this article and looking at a graph in it, the fluctuations in the awarding of PhD's in physics seems to show a strong correlation to social factors because of the level of fluctuation. The sexes in the sciences: Does one gender do better?

The flap is because is smacks of a justification for discrimination in the academic workplace. This is an area the women's rights movement has worked hard to get women into the seats of academic power. While there is no consistent research to point at inherent weaknesses in female science/engineering ability it is best not to reinforce the bias against women in science that exists.

So I have answered the second question.

The uproar was justified because the science behind the open look at inherent differences between men and women is inconclusive at best.

And a representative of the halls of Harvard University, this person speaks not only for himself when he speaks, no matter the role he wishes to be portraying at a conference. The Harvard University president hat simply doesn't come off, it is always present when you are in that position.

I almost always agree wholeheartedly with Eyeore on most subjects- but not this one, sorry LOL

1) Why did his comments provoke such an uproar?

Because Harvard is the main leader in PC language perhaps? I pride myself on being NOT conservative- but this is the kind of stuff that gives anti-conservatives and liberals a bad name. OH my god, the hyperbole of the stuff I am reading at this time, unknown if it is true or not is amazing. Apparently one female professor claimed to be so offended that she almost fainted- OH THE DRAMA LOL

2) Was the uproar justified? If so, why? If not, why not?-

Only if he was quoting something as true science from his personal opinion. If he was quoting a study that has withstood scientific review- then shame on the uproar. I think that goes to the heart of the matter- was he using good science? Is it subject to peer review? If he was- well, to bad for the offended lady proffesors.

I understand where you're coming from Eeyore. Where we part company is here:


Is it really justified? As I read the article, it suggested to me that the idea that woman are inferior to men in math and science was NOT presented as fact, but as a subject that should receive further study.

(Note: I am not directing this post AT Eeyore, I pointed out a difference of opinion and now, (as I frequently do) I will ramble on and on as I work out my point of view in my own head ).


Now, it seems to me that the man was suggesting that there is a problem here (which is recognized by all) and then outlined the possible causes for this problem. He then challenged the participants to consider the problem in a broader context then just discrimination and socialization. He suggested the POSSIBILITY that there could be a genetic link, that women might be naturally weaker in some areas then man, but that this required further study.

One of the offended had this to say:


So apparently she agrees that this is a possibility. Well, then I am confused about what the problem was here. It is a possibility, but one we are not allowed to discuss?

This is a problem I hear about more and more. The idea that Academics, formally THE challengers of society when it comes to "what is", now seem to be the supporters of the status quo when it comes to social science. Why is it wrong to challenge something like this? Even the above detractor admitted it was a possibility, so why is a call for further study on the subject taboo?

What bothers me the most is that these people who so passionately oppose this line of thinking could very well be doing a disservice to the women they think they are championing.

Hypothetically, let us assume that there is a difference between the sexes here. In all likely hood this could be a difference in how the sexes perceive information differently. If this was found to be true, then academics could seek to create teaching methods that would better serve women. However, if it is taboo even to discuss the possibility of a difference, then it is highly unlikely that any research would be done, so the problem continues. The champions become the enablers.

Personally, I for one do NOT believe women have a genetic "weakness" for math and science. My wife's impressive knowledge and abilities dwarf my meager abilities in these areas. If she is a member of the "weaker" sex, then I must be suffering from a severe learning disability.

As the father of a 4 year old daughter, I have a very hard time believing that there is some sort of genetic weakness. This being an excellent opportunity to tell a story about my child I will exploit it.

My daughter was in my care for the day at the age of 2. She asked to watch a Wiggles video, and though I tire of these Aussies I put it in for her. Shortly after that I got a phone call from my cousin. I left the living room for the kitchen (I have never been good at focusing on a telephone conversation with the TV on in front of me), told my daughter I would be back after the call and closed the gate. Being a paranoid father I frequently returned to the gate to check on her.

While talking to my Cousin, a heard a slight little sound like wood moving on the hardwood floor. Knowing my daughters fascination with the knick-knacks on the corner table in the living room I stepped back to the gate, ready to chastise her for messing with things she knows she is not supposed to.

To my horror, she was not messing with the knick-knacks on the corner table, she had a different target in mind. My barely 2 year old daughter, in a span of just a minute or two, managed to silently slide the coffee table over to the entertainment center, get her plastic chair from her room and put it on top, and then climb up on the chair (despite a birth defect that severely limits the use of her right arm and hand), and balance on her tippy toes while messing with the knick-knacks on the top of the entertainment center.

I froze, and I must have let out a gasp because my daughter turned and looked at me. Knowing she was about to be in trouble, she made her escape by LEAPING from the precariously placed chair to the sofa. Needless to say my heart nearly stopped. I ran over, made sure she was alright then promptly put her in the corner and took the chair away.

Now, based on this experience (one of many) I simply cannot support the idea that women are genetically inferior, at least not in the field of engineering.

However, I know it is hard for some to grasp, but woman ARE different from men. Anyone who is married (or in a long term relationship with a member of the opposite sex) can tell you that when a problem comes up, the wife can look at it and see it one way, and the husband can look at it and see it completely differently. Those that bother to try to understand the opposite sex come to realize that typically, neither view is wrong they are just different. Taken together, one outlook tends to complement the other when trying to figure out the best solution for the problem (like what to do about flying children).

I think it is safe to say that women and men think differently. Is it such a stretch to suggest they might learn differently as well? Wouldn't everyone be better served if we did invest resources in investigating this to determine if there is a biological difference rather than plunge our fingers in our ears, close our eyes, turn our heads rapidly back and forth while screaming "sexist!!, bigot!!, I'm not listening!!, I'm not listening!!"?? How is this different then those that were willing to burn people at the stake for suggesting the world was round rather than flat, or that the sun, not the earth was the center of the universe?

Side note: ...she mentioned studies that indicate that women score higher on math tests if there are fewer men in the room while they are taking the test.

Interesting. I have heard of studies that seem to suggest that women perform better academically when in women-only environments. I wonder why that is (other then the typical male distractions such as flatulence ).

Pretty much any human characteristic that has theoretically finite upper and lower limits follows a normal probablity distribution (the so-called "Bell Curve", 'cos it's shaped like a bell). (One exception is income distribution, which has a lower but no upper limit, so is skewed into a Poisson distribution - so called because it's shaped like a fish, poisson being the French word for fish). {Apologies for the Stats 101 course}

Different populations can have different distribution parameters - maybe the position of the mean is different, or the width of the spread is wider or narrower.

It's possible that men and women's likelihood to score highly in maths or science do follow different bell curves, and that maybe the likely average score for women might be somewhat lower than the likely average score for men.

However, for that to be the main explanation for lower numbers of female career scientists and mathematicians, the curves would have to be exactly the same size and shape. Indeed, they would have to be skewed slightly against women, since there are slightly more women in the population to begin with. Since the most brilliant female mathematicians and scientists are certainly comparable to their male peers (hands up all those who think Marie Curie was a thickie who owed it all to hubby?), the curves must overlap significantly (though that could still be explained by a wider spread and lower mean for women).

Even then, there is still no reason to assume that any given man will be a better scientist or mathematician than any given woman - we could be comparing Marie Curie and Homer Simpson, or Albert Einstein and Nicole Ritchie - we'd have to set them some tests first before writing one off from each comparison.

And even if there is a distinct difference between men and women, who is to say that it is innate, rather than some product of conscious (or unconscious) sexism in academia, or even in the way that boys and girls innately prefer to be taught in schools.

This latter explanation rings truer for me, given the trends in academic results for boys and girls since women became the majority of teachers suggest that girls are benefitting and boys suffering from the change in teaching style from male to female. I think in a generation or two, once that effect has worked it's way through the whole of the education sector (rather than just ages 5-18 education), we'll be ready coverage about a female academic running a major Ivy League institution lamenting the fact that so few boys do well in science and maths and wondering if there is something innately masculine behind it.

This goes back to the nature/nurture dilemma that recent threads have looked at in sexuality. I think we overestimate how much conscious and rational control we have over our nurture and underestimate how much we have on our natures, and in any case, we mistake the applied effects of nuture on natural propensities for nature itself. I don't think we're born with a talent for maths or art - I think we're born with a talent for learning things in a particular way, and that we end up being good at the things we find easiest to learn from the teachers we have.

So, I'd say that the guy is right to be worried, but that he (or the media coverage, more likely) is drawing the wrong conclusions.

Hi!....I don't believe for a minute that women are less able than men in the engineering and science areas. My entire professional life has been spent in the academical world in two countries. In my native country, for example, I studied computer sciences and the proportion of women in the career was bigger than the proportion of men. There were very good female students as well as bad ones...the same can be said about men....in some areas women ruled - Data structures, Software engineering, Compilers - meaning they were the heads of department, professors and teaching assistants. In Germany the situation is not very different...a lot more women at my university than men......It is virtually a paradise!

Discrimination plus maybe another definition of objectives in life in comparison to men, could explain the current state of affairs at universities with respect to the presence of women.


Julian, by the way, The Poisson distribution got its name from his originator: Siméon-Denis Poisson and has no fish form.......at least not one that I can recognize..... (well...maybe it is like modern arts.....not everybody sees the same thing on a painting)

giftzahn

I do recall studies suggesting that on average men have more neural density in the area of the brain associated with spatial processing than women. Whereas women on average have more neural density in the area of the brain associated with language processing than men. This suggests to me that, all other things being equal, certain fields of studies should be dominated (in a statistical sense) by a given gender due to advantages associated with innate structural differences in the brain.

Of course, all other things are not equal. The question remains: do the statistically relevant, gender-specific structural differences in people's brains sufficiently explain the proportions we see in certain fields of study? In other words, what are the dominate factors which play a role here? Are social biases more dominate than genetic biases? While I agree that the uproar is over the top, I can understand why it occurred. This is a sensitive subject. Women have been an oppressed gender. Any discussion of "inferiority" plays into the stereotypes that were used to justify this oppression in the past.

As an anecdotal statement... I am always in awe of the multitasking capabilities of the women I know. It's something I simply cannot do very well (and believe me I've tried). Perhaps, this is due to simply "superior" processing capabilities.

I believe this entire issue is about justifying a pre-conceived perception. My bet is, women mad at this guy think most men are sexist pigs. And he just gave them a reason to think it.

However, the guy stated repeatedly that his entire thesis was designed to be thought-provoking. While he touched on many reasons why there might be a difference between men and women in relation to math and science, he brushed the genetic difference angle. He never claimed that was a reason. He only asked the question. And only one woman felt the need to vomit at the entire premise that men and women might be different. Everybody else just piled on afterwards. Many women thought it was a valid question. How come nobody is talking to them?

But you know, I bet if he suggested men have trouble with relationships because we don't think with the head on our shoulders, nobody there would have had a problem with that.

As Val Kilmer stated so well in one of my all-time favorite movies, "Tombstone": "My hypocrisy knows no bounds".

I think that as the world changes and many old hidebound traditions and prjudices fall there will be some confusion as new ideas take place and are explored. At the same time pain inflicted by prejudice will result in backlash and striking out at what is perceived as those prejudices.
Hence the anger at even the hint that women may in some way be inferior.
There have been many studies that show there ARE differences between the abilities of men and women. Just a reality that until now has been taboo to discuss. just still too sensitive.
There are even some differences between the races--certain predispositions to certain diseases, prostate cancer and sickle cell anemia to name a few.
Unfortunaltly these differences have repeatedly been used as justification for the superiority of certain types. Used to try and promote certain hateful myths to instill fear and loathing for race and gender by evil people.
It will take some time before we progrees far enough to get beyond them.
This is sad in that study of these types of differences would probably offer actual solutions to many of todays problems.
Not just that but study into these types of things through uncolored lenses would finally disprove prejudice in showing that while there are many variations among the human species in talents and genetics--in the end they are miniscule in comparison to our shared traits--our common ground--and often should be celebrated as that which makes the individual unique and special while still a part of a large family.

How is it that if men are genetically better at math and science than women, that makes them superior?

Women are genetically better parents in my opinion due to maternal instincts, making them far superior because they have more to do with molding our future as a society than men do. To be clear, that doesn't make us door stops and in fact, we can do better than some women. But statistically, we can't do as good a job.

Of course, this is only my opinion and would require further study.

Would the men and women of Harvard get sick to their stomachs at my observation? After all, mine was basically the same as the guy at Harvard.

harvard crimson

I agree that it's a sensitive subject, but when a learned MIT biologist storms out and is "physically ill" from hearing a scholarly theory discussed, it does little to further the conversation. Does anyone here believe that a man would storm out of a room and feel "physically ill" if told that male brains may have more or less cognition in a given area? Women and men are still different, aren't we? Seems we should be able to discuss all of this like grown ups in academia.

Well, men are not the oppressed gender. However, if we are discussing the oppression of a group where members of a group closely self-identify with the traits defined by/for the group, then, yes, there will always be people who "storm out of the room" when they perceive their group being oppressed. Is this so surprising? This happens all the time in the political realm. In fact, I'd like to cite your years-best-of nomination of Leder's recent quote as being just that sort of thing. Being "adult" also means that one recognizes and avoids provocative, fallacious rhetoric (particularly ad hominem rhetoric).

Women are oppressed? Summers posited for discussion that there may be scientific reasons that "outliers" (or very high and very low performers) in science and math are mostly men. This made a senior professor of biology at MIT physically ill.

As for the argument itself, I see self-selection in the disciplines taking place. If you are female, want to take off a few years and have a family, then get back into work, you miss a few years of development. Strictly speaking about the university world, it would seem easier to drop back into teaching and research with a literature or social science CV than it is a fast-moving field like computer science. You miss a few years in those fields, you may never catch up.

Clearly, the reaction was over the top and probably grand-standing. But, if I started suggesting that it is "worth examining" the parallels between the rise of modern conservatism and the rise of Naziism in the 1930s, do you think that, just because there might be some evidential basis for this proposal, it would get a fair hearing? You tell me.

Interesting point.

However, your referring to political ideology, something that is subject to passion, partisanship and deeply held beliefs. This is something that in inherently subject to interpretation and difficult at best to prove or dis-prove. However, if this had been an academic panel convened to discuss the social trends in America today as they relate to world history then I would think someone running of in a huff because someone else dared to suggest there might be similarities to the rise of the Christian Right today and the Rise of the Nazi Party prior to WWII would be equally out of line and juvenile.

This particular case was one of highly educated, academics, at the top of their chosen fields participating in a closed door conference focused on the lack of women in science careers.

Why is it so horrible that someone suggest a possible reason for the low number of women in the field and suggest that this angle be studied?

What if women do learn differently then men? We cannot know if this is true or not without studying the idea. If it is true, we can examine ways to mitigate the differences through teaching methods. If it is false then we can put it to bed and continue to seek the truth behind the reality.

However, if we blindly adhere to the "PC" view that things like this can't even be talked about, then who would ever try to study the possibility? If it is true, isn't a dis-service being done to women by not seeking ways to address the problem?

No one can tell me women and men don't think differently. Watching a movie, a man passionately embraces a woman he just met. I see the scene and think "huh, I guess goofy looking guys can get lucky once in awhile". My wife sees the same exact scene and thinks "he's wearing a wedding band". I never even saw the wedding band until she mentioned it. Neither of our outlooks are really "wrong", it's just that we tend to focus on different things. It seems perfectly reasonable that we might learn differently as well.

As the father of a daughter I want people to explore this possibility now so that it is either proven false, and thus resources can be focused in other directions, or it is discovered to be true and we can start to re-evaluate or teaching methods before it is too late to benefit my daughter.

Pretending that this possibility does not even exist, rather then seek to prove or disprove it seems to run completely counter to what science is all about. Why demonize someone for suggesting a possibility rather then seek to study that possibility to determine the validity of it or the lack there of?

No, this could be an academic study. The proposal need not involve partisanship at all. The proposal is to draw parallels between one thing and another thing. If the "other thing" happens to be non-PC, that is, Naziism, then someone will view this as an excuse to "storm out of the room". Keep in mind, that PC is not just a liberal thing. It isn't PC to compare conservatives to Nazis. Thus, it is the reaction to the proposal which is partisan and not the proposal itself. And that's my point.


Just so I understand. You're holding highly educated academics to a higher standard than other folks. You seem to be saying that the more educated you are the "better" you should be at dealing with emotionally charged issues. Correct?


It's not horrible. It's just not surprising that someone took offense. Again, I am sure it is possible to offend anyone with a sufficiently provocative statement (even housed in a dry, academic context).


It is worth studying differences between women and men. It is also worth understanding that women will be sensitive to this field of study. It is easy to see how it could be interpreted as a form of female oppression, eugenics and so on.

It which case I would consider their actions juvenile as the second part of my quote above states.



I also said this:



Is it wrong from me to hold people of science to the standards of their profession? "All things are possible until proven impossible". Something my High School science teacher said constantly. I do not think it is in keeping with the standards of the scientific profession to storm off and pout when faced with something you disagree with, rather then work to prove it wrong scientifically.



When people choose to focus on a few words someone says rather then everything that the person mentioned on a subject then yes, it is easy to see how it could be interpreted that way. However, the man seemed to clearly pose this as a possibility that deserved study, NOT as fact. And this woman of science chose to run of in a huff rather then consider the scientific possibility.

So, does here actions in this matter serve to help or hurt her cause in regards to the opinions of those predisposed to believe (wrongly) that women do not belong in science? Seems to me, she gave them a wonderful example to use to support their position.

Science. we are talking about science. Science sees all things as possible until proven otherwise. To respond with horror and feigned illness when faced with a scientific hypotheses one does not agree with rather then seek to research the concept and prove it wrong is no different then the approach ignorant zealots took when faced with the concept that the earth could be round, the sun could be the center of the universe, women could hold any job a man could, and slaves should be free.

The sheer lack of a scientific approach from these scientists is my real problem here.

I think we agree that the reactions are "juvenile". However, unlike you, I am not surprised that there is heightened sensitivity. It is also worth considering the context of a given a proposal so that it can be stated in as diplomatic a way as possible. Now, I don't think that Summers was being particularly provocative, however someone did. The risk of offending someone may be worth it. My point is that it should not be surprising that someone is offended.


No, it is not wrong. It just isn't surprising that there is a reaction. The reaction is not rational, but it does have a basis in fact. Specifically, women were oppressed. Women are not treated equally in society as men. And let me get back to the Nazi thing, so I can illuminate what I mean via example:

What's the difference between these two questions:

1. Are there parallels between the rise of modern conservatism and the rise of Naziism?

2. Are conservatives Nazis?

And for those who are going to take offense at this. Let me be clear. I do not believe this; it's just a provocative question. If it makes you happy, then replace "conservative" with "liberal" and "Nazi" with "anti-American". One question is neutral in phrasing and the other question puts the aggrieved party on the defensive.

So, let me try this with the women thing:

1. Are there genetic/structural differences between women and men that would explain why more men study mathematics?

2. Are women inferior to men in mathematics?


Well, I would have to disagree with this definition of science. And while science may seem like a dispassionate thing on the outside, it is far from it when working in the field. Science is after all done by people and people do have their passions.


As I've said previously, the person's reaction was over the top and probably grand standing. You and I are both empiricists and pragmatists. We can consider the proposal somewhat independently of historical context. However, some people (actually most people) cannot do this (or, rather, do not do this consistently). They hear "women might not think like men" and interpret it as "women are inferior to men". It's irrational, it flies in the face of "good science", and it is unsurprising.

OK well according to the original article:





Now, the writer of the article stated:



OK, assuming that the writer is being accurate and this article fairly portrays the comments then I have to say that I think the man's comments are alot closer to your first examples then your second.

As a person who deals with the public on a daily basis I agree that one has to consider the audience and the message when bringing up a sensitive subject. I just fail to see how someone can take such great offense to what he said, when you consider how he presented it.

Perhaps if he had stated it in the same manner as your second examples I would understand. But he seemed to put it forward as a possibility, as something people should be open to considering and as a direction that needs further study, not as fact.

In your example of conservatives and Nazis (or liberals and nazis, or centrist and nazis or whatever ), I would think that if the idea was framed the same way, most people (at least those who's careers are based of researching the truth), would take it as an interesting thought, even if they don't agree.

There are those in the country that study the rise of the Nazi party, the leadership of Napoleon, Hannibal and Stalin, all in an effort to learn from both the successes and the failures of these historical figures. Then there are those who learn that someone is studying these things and immediately accuse the person doing the studying of bigotry, anti-semitism, power mongering, etc.

It seems to me that this "scientist" didn't feel this idea warranted discussion, let alone study. It was so offensive that the very thought should be forever stricken from the hearts and minds of the people rather then ever being considered. This seems to be more the approach of the Medieval church, then the approach of an academic professional.

When people allow this sort of thought police nonsense to take over it is only a matter of time before our fine Republic collapses IMHO.

My mistake. Thinking back, this comes form my school statistics teacher, who drew a Poisson curve on the blackboard then drew a blue chalk "waterspout" above the modal point and said that it looked a bit like a whale, and that if we remembered that the "big fish" in French would be a poisson we wouldn't forget the name of the curve. It seems he was rather more successful than absolutely necessary.


Well, I recall studies that suggest that at brith there are next to no differences between male and female brains, and that also right up to and including adolescence the process of learning new information or skills physically affects the structure of the linkages and neural pathways within the brain.

This again goes back to my point that there may well be real differences in aptitude between men and women on average, but that these differences may not be caused by anything innate but just as possibly by the way we all, and particularly teachers all, treat boys and girls differently. Most likely without even realising. We simply do not know enough about brain development and behaviour yet to be able to categorically state that men are better at this and worse at that than women are because they are men, because, as you yourself say:



Absolutely right. This pronouncement, it seems to me, is not so much colossally naive or irredeemably sexist as quite cleverly weighted to generate the maximum exposure for this particular academic and by extension his department & university. It's certainly got us all talking about it.

I sincerely doubt he would have got any column inches had he said "differences in the numbers of men and women working in science and mathematics appear to be influenced by a complex interplay factors which may or may not include sexism; cultural assumptions about science and maths as well as about gender roles; unconscious gender differences in formative treatment by parents, siblings, peers and educators; and underlying genetic predispositions" because
"scientist doesn't really know"
isn't a very good headline.

Plus, arguments from nature are always something of a cop-out in situations like this. If it's only natural for women to be less mathematically-minded, this guy doesn't have to do anything to recruit more female students, does he? Typical bloke - path of least resistance every time!


Me too. But I don't know whether it's innate, or that my entire upbringing as a man in Anglo-Saxon society - over 50% of which was directed by women, though I daresay men have most of the same cultural assumptions of gender roles - is predicated on the unconscious and unspoken assumption that my ownership of testicles means that I can only concentrate on one thing at a time and therefore I should only be given one thing at a time to think about.

By the time I (or you) became aware of this (in)capability I had had far less practice than someone who everyone assumed could innately deal with many things at once (a woman, for example.)

So, like men & maths, are women better at multi-tasking innately, or because during their whole lives they've been treated as if they are innately better at it than men are? For me, in practical terms, does it even matter why I can read maps and understand my tax returns (but not both at the same time), while my cousin Jayne can cook, clean, hold down a full-time job, look after children, watch tv and knit teacosies, all at the same time (but gets lost if she drives more than a mile away from anywhere she has been before and whose eyes roll back white in her head if she has to read a credit card bill)?

Eeyore wrote:



I believe you have very accurately described the paradigm at work in current Liberal thought. Liberal thought today filters important issues and questions through a lens that breaks individuals into groups and then ranks those groups according to their power in our society.

Liberal thought of this type is rampant in many disciplines. A story is not a story about an individual but a metaphor for majority group’s keeping the minority group under its control. EX. Beauty and the Beast isn’t the fairytale with a happy ending we have always known but rather a a metaphor for women’s plight in our society. EX. Judges don’t arrive at decisions through the objective application of precedent. Rather, judicial opinions work to either maintain the status quo for those in power or they work to shift power to minorities. The list goes on and on.

This type of filtering is dangerous for several reasons.

First, it inhibits free thought and expression as well as scientific study as in this example.

Second, it discourages any other way of looking at important issues if they do not follow the same paradigm. It is dangerous to limit our analyses of issues to a single paradigm, as it inhibits our ability to learn and find the truth.

Third, it often times produces skewed and absurd analysis.

Agreed, but I believe that is the intention of the 'uproar' to begin with. Entertaining the notion that there might just be gender differences, and accepting such studies also invites that possibility that there are such differences. I majored in Engineering for three years, and received a Chemistry degree. Basically every free elective I had was invested in engineering class credits (I took Materials and Differential equations when I could have taken basket-weaving, or whatever, for example). I'll just offer my own anecdotal experience that I believe it's undeniable women and men have different approaches to certain sciences and mathematics. That isn't simply my observation, but the confirmed observation of every woman I have known with a physical science (not counting biology, which is more memorization than spatial and computational reasoning) or mathematics background.

Contrary to some of what has been said on this thread, there is substantial evidence for hormonal influences on brain development. This has been confirmed in humans and animals, and are far from "inconclusive"...It has even been determined that women with unusually high testosterone levels perform better on spatial tasks. Example here.

Mrs. Pigpen, what's really amazing about your post, is that you have first hand knowledge of a valid question. There is no clear answer, but it certainly warrants study. Whatever we learn from a study will only help all of us.

But this isn't just about a few women getting their panties in a wad. They are calling for his head. They want him to either resign or get fired. He's had to publish an apology that was not at all well received.

All for asking a question.

There have been several attempts in this thread to turn this into a straw man type of argument. This is one of the mild ones.

I don't see anyone arguing that man and women are biologically the same. The results are in and they are "conclusive". Men and women are biologically different and their brains work in different ways

We are talking about an elite university president who has already been under fire for hiring practices under his tenure that might (and, granted, might not be) sexist.
But the statistics look skewed in favor of men.

He is offering as part of his argument the fact that the "market" will correct sexism because sexist institutions will suffer in the long run by having less qualified people. This can be seen (more debatably) as a defense of sexist hiring practices.

And, I will state this again, this is a hypothesis being offered not just be a curious scientist, but by the president of Harvard University, a politician and educator.

I think feminists demonstrated a pretty clear bias against women in the professional world and in prestigious professional schools in the 1960s. Although feminist has become a bad word because of some of the excesses of the feminist movement

Columbia
Link
Title IX related

IMO it is safe to say that gender discrimination in education and did happen and recently. And that it is likely fair to conclude that the long term effects of that discrimination are still with us today. I am not arguing that others aren't conceding this point, but I am trying to point out that there is a reason for remaining sensitivity to gender discrimination in education.

Now this thread is about comments made by Harvard University's president making statements that express the opinion that innate differences between men and women in math and science careers.

I previously offered up that the science behind this line of that is inconclusive at best. I have not had reason to change my mind about that based on the comments and links in this thread.

Now when someone in a tremendous position of power and influence posits an unproven theory I understand why it creates an uproar.

Mrs. P. I ask this as a question since you brought up your personal experience. Did you enter you science and engineering courses thinking that the differences between men and women made you less likely than your classmates to succeed in the class? I don't know the answer but I am interested in your thoughts about this.

For the record, I am all for asking these questions and researching the answers. But for the head of a powerful institution with a history of gender discrimination, President Summers needs to be a better politician. Dismiss it as PC if you will, but his comments have a tremendous impact because of his position. Women who fought through the pre-Title IX official policies of discrimination might just be justified in having a physical reaction to the prospect of a re-emergence of widespread gender discrimination.

In conclusion:

Do I think that the possibility of innate differences between men and women (as groups) should be explored in areas such as performance in math and science? Sure. The evidence should be collected and a body of work exploring such an issue should be explored.

Do I think this has been resolved conclusively?

No, Not even close. While it has been proven that men and women are different, I don't see any proof that their is an inherent advantage for one or the other in math and science. They may come at the discipline in different ways but what this means in terms of quality of science and math work is IMHO clearly unclear.

Do I think the uproar of President Summers comments is justified? Yes. See above. Not because the question was asked, but because he is asking the question from his position with Harvard's hiring history in his tenure and in the past.

Are you wrong if you disagree with my opinion? No, but there is no reason to make straw man arguments out of this. At least acknowledge some merit to the other side.

And by all means, throw some gasoline on the fire and throw in phrases like "panties in a wad." That helps the issue.

(1) Why did his comments provoke such an uproar?

Basically, if you find any reason, besides discrimination, for a gap between white males and any selected minority group in income, employment, education, etc., you will be declared a racist or sexist. Once again the left, in it's desire to equate outcome, not opportunity, is playing the same old game.

(2) Was the uproar justified? If so, why? If not, why not?

No, of course not. It seems much of the criticism is due to Summer's giving tenureship predominately to males. My mother was a special education teacher for many years. Her classes were typically 80-90% male. Does anyone seriously think this is due to discrimination against males? Is there a movement to see that the percentage of 40 year old females sitting in their diaper and eating strained peas equates the number of males in the same circumstances? The fact is that males predominate at the lower end of the IQ bell curve. Of course, they also predominate at the upper end of the IQ bell curve and Harvard U. has their pick of the cream of the crop. Even without innate differences in math and science the evidence that males predominate at the upper end of the IQ bell curve would argue in favor of males dominating positions of tenure at, arguably, the nation's most prestigious university. We return to why there are no female Mozarts argument.

Of course, there could be societal reasons for why there are no female Mozarts. Regardless of the reason for it, HU is dealing with society as it exists. The goal of HU should be to get the best professors. If society is currently producing predominately males at the highest levels of the profession then HU's faculty should reflect this. That is what they owe to their students. I guess you could claim a need for diversity. I am trying real hard to think of how there would be a gender difference in the presenting of science and math.

I’m not sure. I went into those subjects because I was much better at math and science than other things. Also, there was some internal and external pressure to do so because I was “a girl good at math”. But I don’t think any of that placed me at a disadvantage. Actually, I tended to do better the more difficult the subject and LESS likely the expectation for success, because I enjoyed a challenge.

Some of those subjects made for a very cut-throat environment...so in that respect I was taken by surprise. I remember sitting in a class of approximately 300 (of which about 260 were males), being told that only 33 percent of us would pass the class. I felt like the stupidest person in the room. Gradually, the class started to disappear, and I was still there…indicating that I likely wasn’t the stupidest person in the room. I once almost quit a class after the first test (the one I met Mr P in), because I was certain I’d failed. He convinced me to stay, and I actually received B+ on that test, and ended up doing very well in the class. My point being, I think I felt stupid 95 percent of the time I was in school, but it didn’t necessarily adversely effect my grades. But then, Mr P told me he felt stupid every day of his life at the University, too (graduate with high honors, Aerospace engineering). I don’t think it’s a female phenomenon.

I have to really agree with Hugo on this. To me, there is a paranoid oversensitivity to this issue. In my opinion, this president was not out-of-line.

A few comments:

Following this controversy, I heard a scientist (a woman) speaking about some of the studies that seem to show that men's brains are more developed in the areas that control "spatial" intelligence. Her point was that the studies are inconclusive because they didn't study the whole picture. She gave the example of where you studied, hamsters, say and you had the study completely controlled so that you knew that the females going in actually had a larger part of this portion of their brain developed and the males a lesser part. She then said that you could introduce outside stimulus extensively for the males and not the females and this would result in the male hamster brains to be greater. It sounds complicated but the point was that we don't know at what point it is due to genetics or social stimulus because no study has completely controlled the circumstances. Sounded reasonable to me.

In any case, the issue should be studied. I vehemently disagree with those who see the reaction of some female professors as reasonable or understandable given the powerful position of the "messenger". When we expect people to tip toe around important issues for fear of offending someone, we lose out in the long run.

I wrote:


Mrs. Pigpen responded:



I agree completely Mrs. Pigpen. I am sure the uproar was intended to begin with. I find it difficult to believe that someone could have such a physical reaction to comments like his. It really irritates me that the woman got the press that she did. And talk about disingenuous-- does she really think people will believe that it was fortuitous that the info got to the press because in the course of another communication to the PRESS, she happened to mention it? Come on.

Although I did not major in science, I was always good at math. And I always found it strange when I heard of studies that said that girls were somehow discouraged from studying math or some such thing. I never ever experienced anything but encouragement.