He backpedaled and says the causes are actually complex. I'm sure one factor is attitudes like his. (edited to remove rhetorical question phrasing.) I realize the scores show women are behind in this area. But I also believe there are plenty of women who score well above the average man. I don't think the sciences are harmed by programs that encourage women to be involved.
quote: "It's possible I made some reference to innate differences," he said. He said people "would prefer to believe" that the differences in performance between the sexes are due to social factors, "but these are things that need to be studied."
He also cited as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral upbringing. Yet he said she named them "daddy truck" and "baby truck," as if they were dolls.
Yeah, and by the time his daughter can talk she's already been inculcated with a lot of values and gender information from him and his family.
[ January 18, 2005, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
That link is really vague.
I don't think anyone will dispute that there are psychological differences between men and women. The controversy only comes when we try to list and explain the differences, and the real fighting begins when we try to set social policy based on those differences.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Whether he said "aptitude" or "innate differences" can't really be determined. I'm more concerned that a person with such attitudes can be heading what many people look to as the leading university in the country.
I agree that the issue should be open to study. I'll see if there is more detailed analysis of SAT scores anywhere.
What I'm looking for is, for instance, how many women versus men score over 600 on the math as opposed to the whole average of the gender.
quote: There is much controversy over why males outperform girls on standardized tests, with some believing that the reason lies in the fact that males and females approach learning differently and therefore analyze and solve problems differently. These tests may be designed in a manner more conducive to the way males solve problems. Furthermore, the context of questions is important, with both girls and boys doing better on questions with content familiar to them; and if more items favor boys, they have an advantage. References to males in standardized test items consistently outnumber those to females. Finally, girls complete fewer items and are more likely than boys to check an "I don't know" option and fail to complete the test.29
This last sentence is revealing of what could be a major component that is affective and not cognitive.
edit: changed "disgusted" to "concerned"
[ January 19, 2005, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I hope my head won't be removed for this, but here it goes
quote: These tests may be designed in a manner more conducive to the way males solve problems.
Isn't it possible that if males solve problems better in certain ways that those certain ways are better for being an engineer? Obviously this isn't a rule that applies to everyone, just like not every girl does worse than every boy on the SATs. Why can't there be a biological reason why there are more male engineers?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Because it's offensive.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
If there is such a reason, why isn't it better understood? You don't see the problem in a man of this position spouting ill-founded generalities that serve a prejudiced view?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Probably because for some reason saying that biologically men do better than women in math seems a little... illogical... I don't really know why.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hobbes Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:If there is such a reason, why isn't it better understood? You don't see the problem in a man of this position spouting ill-founded generalities that serve a prejudiced view?
Since this issue is NOT better understood, I have to say that this university president is not the only one spouting generalities that serve a prejudiced view
Just about everyone with a strong opinion on this subject (including yourself) has formed their opinion based on prejudice, and not on fact. We simply don't have enough hard, irrefutable science on gender-related psychology to "prove" or "disprove" either position.
We can decide, base on our consciences, that men and women deserve the same rights, the same respect as human beings, the same opportunities, etc. But no matter how conscientious we are, we can't will our brains to work a different way. If there are (or are not) significant differences in the common properties of male and female minds, I'd much rather see us discover (or discover the lack of) those differences through rational and dispassionate scientific study — not idealogical bludgeoning like your expressions of "disgust".
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Did you read my first post?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I sort of like to think everyone's mind works differently and processes information different, on an individual level.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Offensive or just anti-PC?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What the heck do people mean by PC?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I skimmed, so I may have missed something Sorry if I was too harsh!
I think I've just had it in for idealogical science ever since I read State of Fear
[ January 19, 2005, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Idealogical science? Elaborate.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Well, I'll change disgusted to concerned if it pushes a button for you. The irony is that he doesn't seem to appreciate his own power in propogating any bias.
[ January 19, 2005, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Since we don't know the truth, I think we should err on the side of not pushing people into any field based on their sex. Everyone, boys and girls, should be exposed to various fields. While I appreciate having female role models and fellow students (I'm an engineering student), it is not necessary to have a 50/50 balance. I'd rather make sure that I get quality faculty and competent peers. So therefore, I don't feel that there's a need to heavily recruit among girls who don't show much interest in traditionally male-dominated fields. I think girls should get every opportunity to experience science, math, and engineering in a positive way. I think boys ought to get a taste of the humanities and arts (since they seem to be less prevelent in those fields). I don't think it should ever be implied that they ought to pursue these things if it is not their passion simply because we need more of the minority sex in a particular area of study.
But saying that females are not as good as men at math and science is just as stupid as telling females they need to be mathematicians and scientists. Let's try not to bias people toward a career based on gender, okay?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Synesthesia, I have a problem when people go to investigate a scientific issue with an idealogical purpose already in mind. For instance, when people decide that men and women think exactly alike, and that all differences are socially-induced (without any evidence to back up that assertion) and THEN go and try to find studies to "prove" it.
I'm borrowing liberally from Michael Crichton here, but Lysenkoism, Creation Science, Nuclear Winter, Eugenics, the Global Warming scare, etc ... all are examples of bad science getting piggybacked onto idealogies, and getting rammed down the public's throat. The attitude of people who bend scientific investigations to fit ready-made idealogical conclusions is destructive to true science, and to our progress as a society. We waste resources on problems that don't exist, and ignore real problems, because our idealogically-informed "science" leads us down comfortable, but dead-end paths.
There's my rant Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Shig, I'm not saying that the guy's statements were not ill-advised or unhelpful. All I'm saying is that we don't actually know the answer to this question, and that some of the declarations to the contrary that we've been reading are actually just as prejudiced and unscientific as the original statements.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I understand that. I was directing the rant at the Harvard President specifically, and the "Women are definitely not as good at men" crowd in general. I don't have a problem with your comments.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Granted anecdote isn't data- I fled the sciences when I was an undergrad because I was "afraid" of math- even though I could do it. My sister is graduating in math and despite being encouraged to apply to grad school, she won't right now because she's having her second baby in 2 years. We do have two sisters who get along very well in the sciences. But I just know that for me personally it was all social/psychological and not cognitive.
Most days I'm happy to accept it as my fault. I guess I'm just overeager to have some grand male conspiracy revealed by this guy.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Very interesting.. *thinks about that* I still think each invidual's mind is wired differently... I speak from experience...
My mind really doesn't work mathimatically, but, i think I could learn astro physics if I am interested enough in it.
[ January 19, 2005, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Take a look at the thread linked to by Porter. There we see the same battles being faught... reversed. Here its girls drool guys rule, there it was guys drool girls rule. Frankly I got sick of the whole argument before it began.
It really does not matter IN THE LEAST whether there is a biological reason for there being more guys in engineering, more girls in the humanities. Think about it, even if it could be proven that there was such a difference, what are we gonna do with the information? Say girls can't go into science and guys can't study history? No. Becuase there are a lot of girls in science who are very good at it and the same for guys in the humanities. In fact, my two favorite science teachers are girls and some of my favorite english and history teachers have been guys. Any general differences between the genders are minute when compared to the huge variation you see in human individuals. And really they disappear fast the closer you look, the more you zoom in on one town, one school, one group of friends.
I do think biologists should keep studying people and look at the data with clear unbiased minds. Simply becuase the goal of science is to know everything and while looking for the answer to this question they could stumble across answers for many more. The rest of the world, however, should just forget the argument ever existed and treat everyone as an individual human being.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: I guess I'm just overeager to have some grand male conspiracy revealed by this guy.
And that shows what I am most sick of of all the dumb things the human race does to itself. I don't care if your male, female, black, white, homo or hetreo... you're human. And in the long haul, that's what matters.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: It really does not matter IN THE LEAST whether there is a biological reason for there being more guys in engineering, more girls in the humanities. Think about it, even if it could be proven that there was such a difference, what are we gonna do with the information?
It does matter, and not because we should use the information to make science a "men only" field, but because otherwise we operate on the assumption that men and women are equal in this field are therefore if there is a disparity something should be done to correct it. That something would be affirmative action. If its biology and not some environmental barrier then there wouldn't be reason to give females an advantage.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: He also cited as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral upbringing. Yet he said she named them "daddy truck" and "baby truck," as if they were dolls.
FWIW, my son did this too.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
All my play trucks were named John Deers. They were yellow and green. Really cool solid metal construction with lots of moving parts. I guess they were really my younger brothers but I played with them more.
Though there was the fisher price truck that had this sponge paddlewheel that I loved because you'd roll it along and it would scoop up small blocks into its truckbed. I did that for hours trying to figure out exactly how it worked, thinking it had to be more complicated than it seemed.
I never played with dolls after a tragic dismemberment of the one that peed on its own... AJ
[ January 19, 2005, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Pretending physiological sex differences don't exist and refusing to condone any research into them out of a hypothetical, highly unlikely backlash against one sex or the other is more Luddite than I can express at this moment.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Pretending physiological sex differences don't exist and refusing to condone any research into them out of a hypothetical, highly unlikely backlash against one sex or the other is more Luddite than I can express at this moment.
I can't tell if this was aimed at my post at the moment. But in case it was: *ahem*
quote:I do think biologists should keep studying people and look at the data with clear unbiased minds. Simply becuase the goal of science is to know everything and while looking for the answer to this question they could stumble across answers for many more. The rest of the world, however, should just forget the argument ever existed and treat everyone as an individual human being.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Really cool solid metal construction with lots of moving parts.
I had the tonka metal ones - crazy dangerous, now that I've taken torts, but oh so much fun to a 6 year old boy. I had a big crane that could lower it's boom and use it as a lance, a dumptruck which, when the lever was extended with tinker toys, could launch a matchbox car across the room, and a bulldozer that could topple any lincoln structure around.
[ January 19, 2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I liked playing with-A green Hulk toy of my cousins, toy cars, I diapered stuff animals and fed them with a season bottle with water in it. I didn't like playing with dolls though and liked Thundercats and Jem. I was a gender blender even back then...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think I've just had it in for idealogical science ever since I read State of Fear.
Bad Geoff! Bad Geoff! *wagges finger* No turning into your dad until you're a best-selling science-fiction author and polemic columnist first! You have to do these things in the right order, even in the New Economy! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I had the tonka metal ones - crazy dangerous, now that I've taken torts, but oh so much fun to a 6 year old boy. I had a big crane that could lower it's boom and use it as a lance, a dumptruck which, when the lever was extended with tinker toys, could launch a matchbox car across the room, and a bulldozer that could topple any lincoln structure around.
I had those same three trucks . . . although I don't recall them having the same settings as Dags'.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Really cool solid metal construction with lots of moving parts. I guess they were really my younger brothers but I played with them more.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)