Summers' remarks supported by some experts

[ProudToBeLiberal]

Sunday, February 27, 2005 · Last updated 10:43 a.m. PT

Summers' remarks supported by some experts

By MATT CRENSON
AP NATIONAL WRITER

Harvard University president Lawrence Summers has suffered acrimonious condemnation, and may have jeopardized his job, for suggesting that the underrepresentation of women in engineering and some scientific fields may be due in part to inherent differences in the intellectual abilities of the sexes. But Summers could be right.

Some scholars who are in the know about the differences between mens' and womens' brains believe his remarks have merit.

"Among people who do the research, it's not so controversial. There are lots and lots of studies that show that mens' and womens' brains are different," says Richard J. Haier, a professor of psychology in the pediatrics department of the University of California Los Angeles medical school.

Academia has been bitterly divided in recent years by the nature vs. nurture debate, and the Harvard president's comments last month at a National Bureau of Economic Research symposium squarely address aspects of that dispute that are so controversial the opposing sides almost never discuss them.

lot more at...http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apscience_story.asp?category=1501&slug=Thinking%20Differently

[sally343434]

1. Here we are with the "some scholars" thing again

First, it's "some democrats say." Now it's "some scholars say."

Hey, I can find "some people" who say blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Does that lend credibility to the argument?

[roguevalley]

2. Bullshit. I suppose if this is true they will go after minorities being

inferior. Oh. Sorry. They alread have. You know why women live longer than men? Hatred. Pure and simple. ;)

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Gee, let me guess. Were they from the Manhattan Institute?

You know, that conservative think-tank which has been trying to convince us that I.Q. is based on race so that we can eliminate social programs like Head Start?

The only difference between men and women, is that women haven't learned how to organize and create devious networks like men do. Sure, women can be devious, but it's on an individual basis. It's those pesky manipulative networks where they stumble because those are controlled by men who will stop at nothing to keep that glass ceiling low for women.

I've met many techy oriented women, and the problems they had could be attributed to an office arena dominated by men who really didn't want to see them succeed.

[Mikimouse]

4. I call BS on the idiot...

I would probably fall into the category of 'scholars' who study gender. The people who attempt to establish a bilogical difference should be asked to discuss the early socialization of boys and girls and describe how socialization may lead to different types of motor skills (which is the most prevalent difference cited by these pseudo intellectuals). Of course, they never mention the fact that many of the earliest and most insightful social theorists and philosophers were women. But then, who am I to argue with Harvard Ph.D.s, as mine degree will not be from that esteemed institution. (sarcasm off).

[kevsand]

5. I'm probably going to regret this

but, I have seen a number of studies over the years that indicated clear differences in brain chemistry between the genders.

I am not a practicing scientist (and I don't play one on TV), so I couldn't even begin to tell you what the ramifications are. In fact, as I recall, the people doing the studies didn't even attempt to do so.

I'm not saying Summers was right, but we shouldn't discount the reference to "some scholars" out of hand. There are more than a few, and they are easy to find and check out.

[Payback Time]

6. It's all in the semantics

If he brought up differences in male and female brains or brain chemistry, that's at least worthy of consideration and further study, although such a generalization, like all generalizations, is not exactly accurate. HOWEVER, if he used language like differences in "intellectual ability," that raises a lot of shackles as it implies one gender is more intelligent or intellectual than the other (and we all know it's the female sex). Seriously though, folks (LOL), although I'm not really sure of his exact language,it would have been far better to say that the two genders may have different types of cognition or use certain brain areas more than others, rather than using any language implying different "intellectual ability." As far as nature or nurture being responsible, imho, science will find it hard to pinpoint that for quite a while. Research is so slow that you really need a lot of long term data to get the whole picture, and even then there's a lot of assumption and misinformation. After all, describing things tends to limit them and if we knew everything, we would be God.

[CTyankee]

8. Summers was speaking to an academic audience

of scholars at one of the most esteemed universities on the planet. Did he offer any data to support his "wondering?"

[CTyankee]

10. Who, where and what?

and what data did Summers mention to his gathering of scholars at Harvard for whom data backing up their opinions is REQUIRED if they are to remain scholars at Harvard?

[Psephos]

16. Read what Summers said for yourself - here's the link

http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

Even if you ultimately disagree with Summers' remarks, once you read them you realize he went out of his way to accommodate a range of viewpoints, and rightly said that there is good science out there that deserves to be part of the debate.

[ElectroPrincess]

25. You don't understand, this is NOT a debate, but will be used

by those with "hidden agendas" to DISCRIMINATE against women in the workplace. No, there's no honest debate to be had with this issue because we have not ascertained enough scientific evidence to draw such generalizations.

[sendero]

51. You know what?

I am not going to stifle free expression of anybody because "it will be used by those with 'hidden agendas'"

Go after people who actually discriminate, and leave free speech alone.

The fact you don't agree with this guy doesn't make his point of view any more or less objective or true.

Do you GET that?

[ElectroPrincess]

24. I have a masters degree in physiological psychology and guess what?

I can't claim CLEAR differences in brain chemistry between the genders. PM me please with your data/studies?

To date, we can NOT weed out early life experiences as a predictor of academic performance.

This is some sick level of blanketing statements that those who are true to the Scientific Method. We place validity NOT on a smattering of independent and twin studies but on the preponderance of the scientific findings within our field.

This reminds me of the late 80s when I was tapped to serve on jury duty in San Diego. One woman in the pool claimed the following, "I know when people are lying because I took a course on it at Community College."

My point: The more knowledge gleaned with regard to human behavior and how it relates to the functioning of brain structures, the more TRUE scientists are humbled by WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW.

"This jury's still out and will remain so for decades."

[kevsand]

28. This is just the top of the pile

from Google. You'll perhaps forgive me if I don't have time to analyze them individually or find more right now; got to go to my day job! :)

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/mentalhealth/brain.html#gender

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/dept/partnership/brain.html#other

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=10806041

http://inst.santafe.cc.fl.us/~mwehr/X2BioWR.htm#2.10%20BRAIN%20AND%20BEHAVIOR-%20Gender%20Differences

"To date, we can NOT weed out early life experiences as a predictor of academic performance."
I would never dispute that. In fact, I doubt that we'll ever be able to eliminate it as a factor.

"My point: The more knowledge gleaned with regard to human behavior and how it relates to the functioning of brain structures, the more TRUE scientists are humbled by WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW."
I quite agree. You'll notice after even a cursory survey of the links above that nearly all of the studies raise more questions than they answer.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a growing body of work that suggests that there may very well be measurable gender-based differences in human brains. I couldn't begin to tell you what that does or doesn't imply, and I'm not convinced that anyone else can yet, either.

[ElectroPrincess]

29. Yes, OK, then do these studies represent the preponderance of

Scientific evidence? No, I didn't think so.

On Edit: My Thesis was on Object naming as it relates to handedness. You can not make glaring generalizations on the basis of a few studies.

The generalizations that Summers is attempting to draw are NOT scientifically sound and will result in discrimination in academia against girls and women.

BTW, please don't quit your day job. ;)

[kevsand]

41. "BTW, please don't quit your day job."

LOLOL! Quite right. Good advice. ;-)

[ElectroPrincess]

43. You've been quite magnanomous ... thanks much for listening

I'm very intense about such correlation studies and admittedly carry some baggage from some nasty experiences, but I also deplore it when people generalize without sound studies to back them up.

Thanks for the good interation of both thoughts and sentiments. :toast: :thumbsup:

[ElectroPrincess]

31. One more addition ...

If you look closely at the Results and Conclusion sections of these studies you will find the qualifiers "may be" and "this may suggest" and NOT as you have indicated *clear* differences.

The headings are sometimes misleading because even researchers must compete for the all mighty research grants.

I made a number of mild generalizations about female, left handed, sinistral family linked, freshman students (Divided Visual Field Study)on the basis of object naming latencies. However, those conclusions were only with respect to THIS particular population (note all the qualifiers) to their female, right handed, non-sinistral family linked, freshman students.

Can you not see all the true and essential controls that scientists must use in order to arrive at measurable results and therefore make clean (valid) conclusions? Further, the conclusions drawn for each study are based on a SMALL population even if the sample size is adequate (>20 subjects). That's why TRUE scientific findings on the information processing differences between the genders (or the races) is a long way in the future, IF it is even obtainable given the limitations of human intelligence. :-)

[customerserviceguy]

36. I've been reading editorials on the subject

and perhaps with your background, you are the right person to answer the nagging question I have on this subject. Granted, discrimination exists when it comes to teaching girls/women math and the sciences, but don't those forms of discrimination also exist in the fields where women have increased their proportionate representation?

Why would male rocket scientists be any more likely to effectively discriminate against women than male medical doctors, or male attorneys?

[Jim Sagle]

7. Yeah...Charles "Bell Curve" Murray...

:puke:

[WindRavenX]

9. there ARE differences, but that's NOT why Summers' remarks are sexist

What Summers said regarding the biological differences between the genders is correct- men and women learn and think differently. That's a fact. What pisses me off about his remarks is that he implied that because there is a difference between thinking, there is automatically an impaired capacity for women to learn and understand math and science. THAT is false. We are confusing the norms of society- which says men are better at math and science- with what is biologically sound. I have seen NO EVIDENCE that suggests women do not and cannot be intellectual equals of men.

[CTyankee]

11. Thank you so much

You have probably better said it than I could, even thought I have tried. I am so terribly annoyed that he pulled his remark out of his you-know-what, as I think the transcript confirms, which I believe, is his misogynist upbringing, and he deeply regrets it. But he can't because he is the president of Harvard, so back he goes, saying he is a modern day Socrates, posing these provacative questions. PLEASE. As I have said in a thread in another post, this is the oldest of prejucdices against women, it goes back to the beginning of time. To claim that Summers is trying to be Socrates, confronting conventional wisdom of his day, is simply WRONG. This is a prejudicial claim that goes back to the beginning of time! It has been used to keep women out of the workforce, the academy, and politics from time immemorial. Give this thing a break.

[ElectroPrincess]

23. I fully concur ... the Summer's apologists can't spin this into ...

a positive. Summers should be out on the street. Some very BIG players are covering his mysigynist a**. :grr:

[Demeter]

35. Did You Know Summers Is A Twerp of 50?

You'd think from his remarks that he was an old fogey of 80, too gaga to keep up with the current data, and too rigid to adjust his prejudices. Frankly, most 80-year-olds know better from life experience!

No, I'm betting he's an only child, no sisters, and probably a sham of a marriage, if he's married at all any more.

I'm going to ask my sister if she wants to go down to Harvard with me and kick ass. between us, we have 4 times the mathematical ability (and training) of this bozo.

[Psephos]

15. Summers did not say that

Here are his remarks, in toto:

http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

As you read through them, notice how he went to great pains to avoid the incorrect conclusion you attribute to him.

Summers is an economist, used to dealing with statistics concerning populations. His remarks note that there are well-established, if small, differences in a number of objective measurements of abstract mathematical and spatial abilities between men and women, and that these differences appear early, and across cultures.

He wonders whether there are other factors involved besides purely sociological ("nurture") differences, and alludes to studies that indicate there are.

Now for the critical point: these differences show up as deviations from a norm across large numbers of people, and say nothing whatsoever about any individual person's abilities. There is no detectable difference between the overall levels of intelligences between men and women. However, there are statistically significant differences in what more men are better at and what more women are better at. There are also detectable differences in the microanatomy of male and female brains. To grossly simplify, men on average have somewhat more grey matter (better at abstract processing), and women have somewhat more white matter (better at relational processing and seeing connections). These averages show up only when you look at thousands of brains. They say nothing about any single person. Any given woman may have considerably more grey matter than a given man; any given man may be a more accomplished analogist than the woman in the next cubicle.

Again, for those not used to thinking in terms of statistics: there are no credible studies showing differences in overall intelligence between men and women. There are numerous studies showing differences in the distribution of specific forms of thinking over large populations of men and women. This says nothing about any individual's given mental talents.

Here is a quote from the close of Summers' remarks:
"I've given you my best guesses after a fair amount of reading the literature and a lot of talking to people. They may be all wrong. I will have served my purpose if I have provoked thought on this question and provoked the marshalling of evidence to contradict what I have said. But I think we all need to be thinking very hard about how to do better on these issues and that they are too important to sentimentalize rather than to think about in as rigorous and careful ways as we can."

Hardly the shreiking misogynist he's been painted. The man only wants to examine the evidence, and see if there's a better way to address the vexing problem of underrepresentation in certain fields than has been tried to date.

Read what Summers said, don't rely on hearsay.

Peace.

[struggle4progress]

67. Summers said he wanted to make "some attempts at provocation."

Having set out to do this, and having succeeded at this, he has no ground to complain that people were provoked.

Let's not pretend to be unable to distinguish between "attempt at provocation" and "scholarly inquiry."

[dsc]

17. that isn't remotely what the man said

What he did say is that fewer women were at the extremes of math and science ability (both the upper and the lower) but he certainly didn't say that women were incapable as a class of learning upper level math and science.

[WindRavenX]

18. but that's not my point

He's implying that men are naturally better at learning math, where it was more of a struggle to learn for women.

[dsc]

19. No he isn't

He is saying that for some men learning math may come easier than for most women and for that matter most other men. In point of fact, he is saying that for some number of men learning math is harder than for nearly all women (that is what both extremes would mean here). I have no clue if studies back him up on this or not, but I do know what the man said. He is saying that at the extremes (both high and low) there are more men than women when it comes to science and math ability. That says nothing whatsoever about the vast majority of men or women. It doesn't even say anything about the women or men at those extremes just that there will be more men at them than women. In other words he isn't even saying that women at the extremes will be less extreme than men just less numerous.

[Psephos]

20. Good post n/t

[tishaLA]

37. I don't think Summers said

that women cannot be the intellectual equals of men. In fact, he faced the issue of discrimination in academia quite squarely in his talk and said that there may be active misogyny in certain academic departments that make it more difficult for women to succeed. He also suggest myriad other factors, like child care, departmental search committees, housing, and the criteria used to judge whether someone "deserves" tenure or not (granted, this varies depending on departmental affiliation and the university in which one is employed; some stress publication to the exclusion of all other criteria, while others address a combination of publication, teaching, and departmental service).

I live in academia and what Summers said has been very productive for me and my colleagues. I spend most of my time with those colleagues and my books, after all. It opened renewed debate and discussion about the role of women and other underrepresented groups in academia and--guess what?--most women in academia welcome the discussion and are taking his talk quite seriously. We all know that the women at Summers' panel, which featured scholars from some of America's finest universities did not get their jobs at those top institutions because they are incapable in their field. In fact, we and Summers himself know they are among the very best in the world at what they do (Summers' mother was a Professor at my undergrad alma mater, U Penn, for what it's worth). Thus, if there are certain markers of "difference" genetically--I think this is a specious argument, for what it's worth, and I think it shows the limits of science (and out fetishization of it) when we talk about race, gender, ethnicity, etc--those women have obviously overcome those differences and emerged at the top of their professions.

But I want to return, as an end, to what I just said: when we get into the silly discussions about genetic differences and gender, we really give too much priority to scientific voodoo. It was not long ago that people took "race sciences" seriously, after all, and when we foreground scientific "knowledge"--"science proves X about gender difference and intellectual development but it doesn't prove Y"--we are bound to find scientists whose findings counter almost any argument we make about the role of gender/race/sexuality in intellectual development. The fact is that gender and intellectual development is a complex, amorphous thing no single discipline can fully understand or account for.

[Skittles]

40. I've seen evidence to suggest we are much smarter than they are

:7

[eridani]

74. Why do doctors slap newborns on the back?

To make the penises fall off the smart ones.

[kevsand]

12. I quite agree

with the way you all have parsed the issue. My earlier post was simply a reply to the perceived tone of the initial posters, who seemed to be disparaging Prof. Haier's remarks with no consideration for their potential accuracy.

Summers, of course, is another kettle of fish altogether. At best, his remarks were ill conceived; at worst, deeply disturbing. I find it mildly ironic that he sees himself as Socratic. Before this is over, he may well be facing a figurative draught of hemlock.

[Senior citizen]

13. If Summers understood the scientific method, he'd realize

that, as yet, we cannot have any idea whatsoever whether there are inherent differences in the male and female brain.

In order to study the problem scientifically, you need a control group. In this case such a control group would have to consist of females who were raised from infancy completely without regard to sex in a totally nonsexist, egalitarian society.

If "scientists" like the ones supporting Summers had gone to China before footbinding was banned, they would have simply measured people's feet and concluded that female feet were, on the average, much smaller than male feet. That's what their measurements would have indicated.

We know that females are treated differently from males in our society, and this starts at (or even before) birth, and is constant. Things like expecting female babies to smile more, the use of sex-based pronouns, explaining to little girls why they shouldn't do things their brothers may do, etc. Some years back a study showed that when young schoolchildren were asked what they would do if they were the opposite sex, little girls listed things like playing professional baseball and becoming President, while little boys said they'd kill themselves.

The cumulative effect of disparate treatment, may effect the brain, not only in how females learn, but in which parts of the brain may grow or shrink. And so long as there are more male roles models than female role models in any given profession, there is de facto encouragement for males to succeed and females to fail. People tend to feel comfortable among others like themselves, so until there is a balanced faculty, there is not an equal playing field.

The need for a control group is basic to the scientific method, and anyone unfamiliar with this principle should not call themselves a scientist. We know that both nature and nurture may play a part in human development, but we do not have the control group that would permit us to find out the extent and result of social influence. To account for any disparities between the sexes as biological, without bothering to scientifically investigate if such disparities might have a social basis, is irresponsible and unscientific.

[Psephos]

14. That's not true; separated twin studies have provided control groups

Check out the cited article in the original post.

Here is a good book (actually, proceedings of a seminal conference) on the role of twin studies in behavioral genetics, which shows how important this technique has been.

Twins as a Tool of Behavioral Genetics
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471941743/qid=1109564099/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/102-6269496-1419300?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

If you haven't done so, read Summers' actual remarks. Don't rely on someone else to vet your primary sources. That's the first rule of science.
http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

Summers did not say what most here think he said. I am surprised that almost no one has bothered to read what the man said, nor looked at the large body of research in behavioral genetics that fueled his remarks. Frankly, I'm surprised at the level of scientific unfamiliarity among posters to this thread - I would think that reading the background, or at least the actual cited article, might be the first order of business before firing off an outraged opinion (I'm not directing this at you, Senior Citizen.)

Senior, you did say: "as yet, we cannot have any idea whatsoever whether there are inherent differences in the male and female brain."

There are a lot of scientists who have shown that we can. Testosterone has powerful gestational effects on fetal phenotype. Men's brains are different from women's (read the article, if nothing else). If anyone is interested, there are whole shelves of books on this subject at any decent university library. Here's a well-written one aimed at the layperson to start with:

The Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are
by Joseph LeDoux
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0142001783/ref=pd_sbs_b_3/102-6269496-1419300?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
LeDoux is one of the top researchers in the field

Here's another superb book, a collection of articles by the hottest researchers. The article by Tobin is directly related to Summers' comments.
Behavioral Genetics: The Clash of Culture and Biology
Edite by Carson and Rothstein
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801860695/qid=1109564099/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-6269496-1419300?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Peace.

[papau]

21. what can a separated twin study prove-or suggest-in sex based math ability

calculations?

We know the physical difference/chem diff

2 females are separated and we measure something relative to male vs female?

"twins" of different sex are not identical - obviously - so that proves nothing.

While I agree with your prior post on statistics, Psephos, Senior citizen is, I believe, correct.

Indeed one shocker you did not mention was the smaller size of modern brains relative to some humans on our "tree".

We have no clue what the effect is of the size and chem measurements we have taken to date.

Peace

:-)

[Psephos]

44. Papau, the twin studies don't test one sex against the other

What they do permit is to examine the effects of different socialization and environment upon demonstrated capability on standardized tests, and against objective statistics such as career choice or number of papers published, etc.

In other words, they allow a researcher to zoom in on differences that are sex-based, by subtracting out or correcting for those that are.

This is a critical distinction.

Your point about Homo sapiens having smaller (by volume) brains than some ancestor species is a good one, but tangential to this discussion. Intelligence is not an absolute function of brain size, but of brain organization, and the specialization of processing areas. It's possible to have a smaller brain but a smarter brain. Consider women ve. men for the most handy example. The average woman has about a tenth less brain mass than a man (these are population averages, and say nothing about any individual person). But the female brain appears to be more efficiently interconnected, and there is no difference in overall intelligence levels between men and women. When you look at aggregate populations, there are statistically important differences in the distribution of aptitudes and mental styles between men and women. This is not a new or disputed finding, by the way.

Here's a short article in the current US News and World Report (hardly conclusive, but a useful summary of interesting findings).

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050307/education/7harvard.b1.htm

Here's a decent Reuters write-up that summarizes Haier's findings (which are by no means Earth-shattering).

http://au.health.yahoo.com/050131/3/35p6.html?r=967438212

Here's an article in the respected journal Cerebral Cortex on a key difference between male and female brains, and how it contributes to differences in innate aggression between men and women.

http://cercor.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/9/998?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=gur&searchid=1033416864541_375&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=12&issue=9&journalcode=cercor

There are so many more...so many...

Ultimately, the Summers incident provides a strong lesson to the problems that arise when politics is allowed to taint science. Summers, as anyone who's read what the man actually said, did the exact opposite of what his vilifiers claim. He asked for a debate on the merits of the science, rather than on the orthodoxy of the politics.

Here is a direct quote from his comments:

"I've given you my best guesses after a fair amount of reading the literature and a lot of talking to people. They may be all wrong. I will have served my purpose if I have provoked thought on this question and provoked the marshalling of evidence to contradict what I have said. But I think we all need to be thinking very hard about how to do better on these issues and that they are too important to sentimentalize rather than to think about in as rigorous and careful ways as we can."

If you have not read what he said, here is the full text link:

http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

Politics has no place in science. None. Politics starts with its conclusions, and then adduces its data. Science starts with data, and draws its conclusions. The raison d'etre of science is not to be able to prove a hypothesis right, but to be able to eliminate hypotheses that are wrong. Again, the exact opposite of politics.

[Senior citizen]

26. Separated twin studies CANNOT provide control groups.

Unless one twin is raised in a totally nonsexist, egalitarian environment. We do not have the slightest possibility of creating such an environment. After at least 5,000 years of patriarchy, we don't even know what such an environment would look like.

If you want to see the difference socialization makes, try referring to a 3-year-old boy as "she" for a week. Well, no--actually it might be better if you didn't, as he might never recover from the trauma. But once you see how he resists it, and how insulting it seems to him, you'll begin to recognize that children are socialized differently, so that one is taught to fight against belittlement, while the other is taught to accept it "because you're a girl."

As for the effects of hormones, we cannot know exactly how much effect they have on brain development and brain function, unless we can control for social influence.

If you had to do scientific work measured against someone else doing the same work, the only difference being that every five minutes someone poked their head into your lab and called you an idiot, I think you'd find that it can effect your work, even if you try to discount it and you know that you're not an idiot. It could even be considered a form of torture, and the longer it went on, the more difficult it would be for you to work, particularly if you could not control it and denial was your only defense.

There have been workshops where ordinary women were dressed as males and permitted to experience "being male." They found themselves speaking louder, taking up more space, making more expansive gestures, and having more self-confidence, exactly like males in a patriarchal society. That's not hormones, as they were not given hormones.

Raising identical twins separately has no bearing on this issue. The fact remains that we treat people differently from birth based on sex, and this has an effect on how their brains develop and function. We cannot know how much effect it has unless and until it is possible for us to raise children in an egalitarian, nonsexist environment as a control group.

I am not saying that hormones have no effect on fetal brain development. I am saying that socialization also has an effect on brain development and function, and that we cannot draw scientific conclusions without controlling for socialization--something that patriarchy will not permit us to do.

It is a fact that the brain of a female math professor functions differently from the brain of a male with an extremely low I.Q. It is a fact that there are more differences among the sexes than between them. Those who wish to generalize about people based on sex or race should be considered fascists, not scientists.

The fact that, despite having fewer role models, experiencing sexism in education and in general society, and (as studies have shown) having their work evaluated as less worthy simply because they are known to be female, there actually exist female engineers, physicists, and mathematicians, is amazing, as they have had to work much harder and, in effect, create their own realities while discounting everything society tells them, in order to get where they are.

I'm not even sure we can have anything that could truly be called science in a patriarchal society. For example, look at the definition of male and female humans. Science defines male and female in bimorphic species as those which produce eggs being female and those which produce sperm being male. But doctors who perform genital mutilation on intersex infants do not take into consideration whether their bodies would produce eggs or sperm, only whether or not they have a large penis and descended testicles. But roosters don't have a penis--does that make them hens? Female hyenas have a penis--does that make them males? Patriarchy is based on penis-worship, so when it comes to sexism, science goes out the window. There are numerous stories of how intersex children have suffered due to genital mutilation. A society which still performs genital mutilation on infants merely to force them into stereotypical gender roles, has no claim to science or objectivity.

[Mizmoon]

22. excellent points S.C.

well said.:thumbsup:

[Merlin]

27. HE's A WITCH ! Liberal Mullahs must BURN HIM !

He hath dared to speak words which may be perceived by the casual listener to be contrary to our idealistic notions.

It mattereth not whether these notions are incontrovertibly true, but only that WE BELIEVE THEM.

Therefore, he hath spoken like a DUMMY.

And what are DUMMYs made of ? THINK !

WOOD ! That's right. WOOD!

And what does wood DO? It burns, yes.

So we must BURN HIM. If he burn, he is wood therefore he is a dummy therefore what he says is FALSE.

BURN HIM!

We are LIBERALS! We do not tolerate freedom of thought and expression!

[ElectroPrincess]

30. Not even approaching *cute* Mr. Merlin

This is nothing ... the damn freepers think it's OK to KILL Doctors who perform abortions. You're "crying and blowing snot" because women do NOT want the powers that be to discriminate against them at the admissions office.

Remember, it was not long ago (60s-70s) when racists like Arthur Jensen and his ilk were using such correlation studies to conclude that African Americans have lower IQs than Whites, and Asians were superior to all of us combined.

Look at the history of these type studies and you will find that many of us acted appropriately. Even if "some" independent and twin studies can measure different chemicals within the brain between Men and Women, DO THEY KNOW WHAT IS OCCURRING AT THE SYNAPTIC LEVEL?

The answer is NO. Until we can open up and measure the electrochemical reactions of the human brain - in action - we are only indirectly making theories and suggestions regarding the differences in information processing between the genders.

But oh how nice it would be if the RW fanatics could force women back into the gender roles of the 1950s.

Please consider the implications of these unproven generalizations from indirect measurements and inadequate population samples.

Yes, some of the above are reputable scientific studies, but scientific generalizations are NOT made on smatterings of independent, poorly controlled data.

[Merlin]

32. These sound like perfect excuses for squelching dissent

If you were in power, you could employ these as public justifications for imprisoning anybody who disagrees with you.

You're way too concerned with things the "seem like" something else. You need to be way more precise or you risk being guilty of the same kinds of thought control we accuse the right wing of attempting to impose on the public.

[DARE to HOPE]

33. Bingo. You made our point: "if you were in power..."

Women are NOT "in power" in this country, in this world right now, lofty as some aims have been.

And I would submit that this whole business, from the president of Harvard!'s first remarks, to these "gender science experts" is a well thought out attack on women's recent achievements BY THOSE WHO ARE "in power."

Believe me, I was in a Lutheran church last night for the retirement service of a colleague of ours, and the daughters of the family came to church wrapped in head coverings. Not hats, not scarves, but white, wrapped around the hair head coverings. It was shocking--they attend a Lutheran church down in Kansas, and this is their regular practice.

The right wing assault on women's rights by the current gang in power, as on the rights of gays and others, are right out of the snowballing chain of events in the 1930's in Germany, as I see it.

[Merlin]

34. Your view is profoundly self-centered and myopic.

I shouldn't have to remind you that I'm not in power either.

I have a few advantages--as a white male--that females do not have. But I have a few disadvantages as well, such as having to serve 3 years of my life in the military--2 of them in combat--for my country.

I have many advantages over non-white males. But I still face the same challenges most non-rich, non-connected, non-old-boy-network white males have to face, including busting my ass all my life to keep my head above water.

So life's a bitch all the way around, when you're not rich, not just for females and minorities.

The point is--since you obviously missed it--that allegations of violations of speech etiquette on these issues need to be very carefully evaluated. This is one instance when the man clearly did not state anything other than fact, and clearly made a special effort to indicate he was raising it to stimulate discussion, not to indicate his agreement.

I'm a little tired of being treated like a fascist just because I'm a white male. Yes there are plenty of stupid white guys. But most white guys on this board are not in that group.

[ElectroPrincess]

38. "I have a few advantages--as a white male" ... I rest my case

You did not struggle having to be twice as good both physically (endurance, PT tests) and mentally (leadership, military history) in the newly integrated Army of the late 70s to mid 80s. You, Mr. Merlin were not 1 to 30 ratio of women to men in the newly opened Airborne School (to women). YOU did not see your best friend "dogged" out of this kick-a** school ONLY because a couple Sergeant Airbornes thought she was too ugly to graduate.

I've seen and been a part of discrimination against women. It was this very fact and the politics of "playing games" as an Intelligence Officer that encouraged me to resign my Regular Army commission, go back to Graduate School, and dedicate the rest of my life to research and counseling.

Because you are NOT a woman in her mid 40s, you have no idea how many times I've been figuratively kicked in the teeth. Although I was an attractive young officer, I played it straight and didn't flirt. For that I payed another price.

Even as a graduate student in the field of Psychology, our Department Chair used to whine about the "feminization" of this field. He worried that salaries would take a nose dive besides being a shameless male chauvinist, i.e., he showed off by doing 50 push ups for his 50th birthday. :P

One day this Department Chair arrived at the meeting and exclaimed with joy, "We're finally having a MAN (male student) joining our research group." I quickly retorted, "Great! Dr. X, Now us women will have someone to bring us coffee. :toast: The entire group chuckled, then quickly realized his power and quieted down.

Yeah, it was worth having to submit my thesis proposal FOUR 4X for that comment. In some weird way, this man respected me albeit I had to work twice as hard as most ... not only for being a woman but bluntly stating the truth.

So you, Mr. White Man go about thinking that such differentiations are noteworthy because they NEVER affect you in a negative way. That makes perfect sense.

[Merlin]

45. You're right. It's everybody ELSE who is self-centered and myopic.

How could I have been so wrong!

Life is so unfair. You're very special and the whole world--especially white guys--are out to tear you down and destroy every attempt you ever made to achieve something or make something of yourself. Males all collude to obstruct the progress of deserving women. All males are pigs. No male can understand the special angst of women no matter how hard they try; they just can never grasp how much harder life is for women than for men. Men have all the advantages. Women have none. It's entirely a man's world. Women have no power at all. All men are bastards. There are no exceptions.

Women have every right in the world to distort what Larry Summers said and claim he meant something he specifically said he did not mean just because women--especially you--have had such a raw deal from life. We must show white males no mercy, no quarter, and no honor.

It is very unfortunate that everyone else in the world fails to appreciate your exceptional qualitities.

If you wish, I would personally be willing to nominate you for the distinction of quintessential rad fem poster woman, in hopes that such a gesture can make good for all the slights humanity has heaped upon you.

[ElectroPrincess]

48. Thanks but no thanks :-) ...

I'm doing well in life. You must not be old enough to remember how women were treated in the work force in the 50s and 60s. You also forget the racist psychologists in the 60s like Arthur Jensen with their precious "g" factor findings that were touted as undeniable facts.

If you honestly think that you have not had life significantly better by being born male, white and into a middle class family ... well then perhaps turning to the Republican party may be your salvation. Then you can continue to discriminate against women and minorities without censor. Plus the added benefit is you will NOT have to use science to make your claims ... hatred of "others" is enough for the right wing radicals.

[The_Casual_Observer]

72. Your post is meritless

[Gloria]

39. From what I've read, there are gender difference in the brain...BUT

each individual of either sex has his/her own potential! And that's what should be encouraged, not this crappy "stereotyping" that seems to mushroom out of the science.

[ElectroPrincess]

42. Again, those assumptions are NOT via autopsies but from

indirect measurements of brain activity. Morally we can NOT perform psycho-surgery to get into the brain structures. Furthermore, we are a long way of knowing what electrochemical reactions are occurring at the synaptic level.

I hope that folks can begin to understand the complexity of the functioning human brain. Even if you can positively ascertain different chemicals and perhaps, increased structural size (corpus callosum is suggested to be thicker in women, etc) ... we don't know one WHAT THIS MEANS with regard to performance and information processing without knowing the nature of the synaptic activity.

Why? Because understanding the actions of neurotransmitter activity at the synaptic level is still in it's infancy. For example, antidepressants raise levels of key neuro-transmitters within the brain over the period of 3-4 weeks, but scientists do NOT know the exact mechanisms of these actions. Yes, they draw theories of synaptic activities but they are not FACTS. Further, many clinically depressed patients must proceed through a "trial and error" period of sometimes up to 3-4 different antidepressants NOT only due to their differing mechanisms and effects on key neurotransmitters - but ALSO -because each individual is somewhat unique and will demonstrate varying levels of side effects.

In order to flatly say gender or racial differences are absolutely and undeniably REAL, these scientists would have to sample both genders and identified races of significant sample sizes, throughout all corners of the world. And finally, as some other member thoughtfully pointed out, we haven't even addressed the factors involved in establishing sound "control groups."

Think about the Psychology today correlations that do NOT stimulate conversation but serve to OVER-generalize and discriminate against entire groups of humanity? I remember something to the effect that, correlationally, it is stated as A FACT that "left handers die younger than right handers."

Can't you see the unscientific nature of the above statement? Where was the sample taken? Were all environmental factors controlled? Were all genetic predispositions controlled? Was familial sinistrally of the subjects researched and of a similar history?

The above paragraph drives home the point that each scientific study represents a mere particle to the overall foundation of knowledge. There are many reputable scientists who will make generalizations from one study, but those generalizations are only THEORIES until such experiments are replicated hundreds of times over AND with careful monitoring of extemporary factors that often can NOT be weeded out of these studies (environmental upbringing/experience).

Scientific discoveries do NOT reflect blanket generalizations that people can wrap up in neat little "all encompassing" sentences.

Science is continuous, complex and ever evolving. Reading a few studies from Psychology Today does not *validly* permit one to draw hard and fast differentiations between the sexes and/or the races. To attempt to do so is IMHO, a desire for certain political powers to have control over an entire sub-set of humanity.

The more I study the recent breakthroughs in the field of physiological psychology, the more I am humbled. My undergrad physiology professor said, "We will never FULLY understand the human brain, for we are only HUMAN."

[Psephos]

46. EP, I've always loved your posts, but...

I wonder if your past has made you a little too close to this topic.

First things first. Be honest - have you read what Summers said? Every word? It will take about ten minutes. Here is the link.

http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

I posted a lot of other links in other responses in this thread. Check at least a few of them out. Please, keep an open mind. It's tough when you have emotional investment in an idea, but it's the only way we progress. As a scientist, you know that the elimination of bias is the bugaboo of even the best-designed experiments. Now I will be so bold as to suggest you may have some bias in your own filtering of current science.

(Remember, I don't have a dog in this fight. My sole position is that what Summers asked for - an objective and skeptical discussion - was reasonable and likely to help solve problems, not create them.)

To evaluate sex-based differences between men and women, it really doesn't matter if we know the microphysiology of synapses, any more than it matters whether we know the microphysiology of muscle hypertrophy in response to resistance loading. We just go to the gym and lift weights, and muscles grow. They grow faster, on average, in men than in women. Yet women have been shown, pound for pound, to have better endurance cardio capability. Different? Yes. Is one better than the other? No.

Why are four out of five autism cases male, across populations and cultures? Whether or not we know how autistic synapses fire, we can certainly say there is a sex-linked component to the condition of autism.

You seem focused on our incomplete (even woefully incomplete) knowledge of esoteric neurofunction at cellular and lower scales, but the science has actually been driven by clear statistical evidence derived from performance on standardized aptitude tests. The data have proven durable. Now, researchers are trying to isolate variables (such as social environment, genetics, collateral aptitudes, etc.) to eliminate wrong hypotheses and zoom in on the contributing factors. Remember, at this level, the discussion is not about social performance, such as numbers of female versus male physicists. The social ("nurture") component is clearly a major factor along with the genetics.

In other words, that there are differences is no longer debated. The unsolved problem is why are there differences, and how do we sort out the contributions of environment and genes to the overall picture?

Research continues to unveil a strong genetic component to these differences. Behavioral genetics is a hot field right now, just as sociobiology was twenty years ago, and probably for the same reason: it is upending the old orthodoxies with new findings.

Don't be afraid of where the science is leading, EP. More knowledge is a good thing. No one is going to turn back the clock on women's struggle to achieve equality, just as civil rights laws aren't going to be rescinded, either.

Keep the faith, girl. We have more work to do.

Peace.

[ElectroPrincess]

47. I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from calling me "girl"

I find your narrative condescending and disrespectful but, most important, *unscientific*, if not disrespectful of the entire field of physiological psychology.

One has to wonder about pseudo-science and those who refer to certain endeavors as "a HOT field". I strongly suspect that all you care about are "the findings" ... are you someone who only wishes to manipulate the findings to serve hidden political agendas?

I admit my sensibilities, what are yours?

I did read Summers' full statement and subsequent mea culpas. Your cut in past effort above does not even flow "in logic", i.e., forget about form. It's fine to attempt to "baffle us with bullsh*t" but at least consider making it somewhat palatable.

I am a scientist and these studies that SUGGEST differences still need further validation. Science isn't an segment of "Entertainment Tonight" for people with "a score to settle" such as yourself (with hidden) agendas to pick and choose which studies YOU personally grant validity.

What exactly is your agenda because IMHO you have no "firm" understanding of the scientific process?

You took my openness and honesty about my life experiences and then attempted to figuratively GUT me like a fish. Shame on you ... and how very REPUBLICAN in nature and tactics. <eg> By the way you digress above and degrade your character to name call, I must ask you, "Is winning everything?"

No, "we" (you and me) don't have more work to do because I have already personally busted my a** to set a good example as a woman soldier.

Whatever attitude I presently harbor, especially toward covert male chauvinism, well ... I earned it.

No Sir. There is no "we" here and again, do NOT call me *girl*. :nuke:

[Psephos]

49. "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate"

That's my favorite line from the movie Hud, btw.

Reading and writing posts in a forum is such an imperfect form of communication, alas. It's *so easy* to misinterpret the emotional content of posts, if the reader assigns a different emotional context to them than the author intended. Words can have many shades of meaning (depending on the emotions behind them), but we lack all the normal cues (past experience, vocal inflection, facial expression, body language, etc.) that we have in real conversation to figure out what meanings to give them.

Regarding you, EP, I haven't a condescending nor disrespectful bone in my body. To the contrary, based on what you said about your past, I have real respect for what you've done and how you've gotten to where you are.

I absolutely made no attempt to "gut" you - actually, just the opposite. I value what you have to say, all the more so because you have a different perspective. I know that exposure to a diversity of opinions is the best tool to help pry open my mind.

As I mentioned previously, I don't have a dog in this fight - my "agenda" is having a good discussion. I love science, and I am a student of the way orthodoxies and heterodoxies clash in science history. (Very instructive for our own times, IMO.) Generally speaking, if I'm persuaded that my opinion needs revising - hallelujah. :-) That's why I come to these forums in the first place. To stay limber and engaged, by offering my opinions and reading other people's. Anyone who's read some of my other posts knows I can be a bit of an iconoclast but a Repug? NOT! If you knew me in person you'd have a big belly laugh about that! I am *'s worst nightmare.

It looks like the highly emotional nature of this discussion may prevent us from having a good exchange here, but as I said previously, I've seen your posts on other threads and liked your lively input. I'll continue to look for more of them, and wish you well.

PS My use of "girl" was a term of respect and a recognition of female power and verve. I meant it more as "grrrl," and it's the opposite of condescension. But consider it gone, anyway. This is a good example of what I said in the first paragraph - a term that can be misunderstood if one imparts the wrong emotional context. Also, when I said "we," I meant the progressive community, not you and me. No harm, no foul.

Peace.

[ElectroPrincess]

50. Yes Sir Boss! ... visualize Paul Newman's character on his knees ...

looking up at his Jailers.

That's one of my favorite movies of all time and it's "Cool Hand Luke", btw.

Yes Sir, I know you don't take kindly to be pr oven wrong and all. But "Cool Hand Luke" was the 1967 classic Southern Prison Drama.

Because the above correction is seemingly the only fact that you will be unable to "spin into a fault" on my part, I will bid you farewell.

Good luck and please be aware that the AEI is always recruiting intelligent and skillful members. /eom

[Psephos]

52. You're right!

Typical of me to type one thing when I am thinking the other. (My ADD again, heh.)

Cool Hand Luke it was, of course.

Peace.

[eridani]

76. Autism has nothing to do with male secondary sex characteristics

--any more than red-green colorblindness or hemophilia do. Those are the proper analogies for autism.

[Spinoza]

53. Human beings are all

members of the class Mammalia. This taxonomic class consists of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young. The class mammalia includes around 5,000 separate species. (A species consists of related organisms capable of inter-breeding. Human beings are members of the species Sapiens.) HUNDREDS of mammalian species have been studied under laboratory conditions. In EVERY SINGLE case, innate differences have been found between male and female brain structure and brain functioning. No Exceptions.

The idea that sapiens alone, of all mammalian species, does NOT contain innate biological differences between male and female brain structures and functioning is, of course, preposterous.

Note, that this says nothing at all about superiority or inferiority.

[ElectroPrincess]

54. You are again making blanket statements ...

Further, even though we all know that both genetically and hormonally the sexes differ which MAY INCLUDE slight brain chemistry and structural alterations, there is NO place for University Chairmen to draw CONCLUSIONS on that basis.

This is IMO the "Duh Factor" ... of course our bodies are different but I'll be damned if I allow some misogynist "powers that be" prematurely kick the scientific discovery door open to extrapolate as to how those chemical differences effect behavior. As I and other scientists have claimed before, there is NO control group in these so called brain chemical measurements research.

We need years of well designed and carefully conducted research into brain function as it relates to behavior in order to even TAP the basics of cognitive abilities, much less any *FACTS* as to differences in performance between the sexes on aptitude tests.

Again, like statistics, one can find a research study to support almost any "prejudice", but that one molecule of data does NOT represent anything close to a scientific breakthrough.

[Spinoza]

55. Since scientific investigation firmly supports

the knowlege that male and female brains differ in structure and functioning; and since several scientific tests indicate (not prove) that females, ON AVERAGE, may be superior to males in certain cognitive areas, and that males ON AVERAGE may be superior to females in certain cognitive areas it would seem to me that Summer did not deserve the (often) hysterical reaction to his comments.

P.S.
I can't "again" be making "blanket statements", since the post you responded to was my first post on this subject. However, now that I have posted a second time you can accurately characterize my comments with the word "again", should you so wish.

[ElectroPrincess]

57. Again, what part of NO CONTROL GROUP can't you acknowledge?

This research can NOT be done in a vacuum. And scientific research, when properly conducted must evolve OVER TIME.

Those of us over 40 y.o. remember the social/political FIRESTORM when racist psychologists attempted to extrapolate from correlation data that African Americans were inferior. The public rose up and destroyed their so call *FACTS OF SCIENCE* back in the 60s and 70s.

I can only hope that there's enough ground swell of public outrage to discourage premature "politically driven" conclusions about how perhaps SLIGHT differences in brain chemistry and structure between the human sexes, effect their performance.

No, it's not esoteric to INSIST on knowing what exactly is going on *at* the structural and synaptic level of the brain.

What many folks who don't have a scientific background (and those with a hidden political agenda) will NOT accept is the fact that we are *honestly* decades away from being able to ascertain such FACTS.

Finally, there is a strong political agenda driving this research which is unsound. I honestly believe that decades down the road, the TRUE learning differences between girls and boys will be negligible if/when environmental factors can be successfully controlled.

Dammit, if folks like Jensen were successful in politically promoting their "g" factor, we'd be treating African Americans as second class citizens and those of Asian ancestry as INNATELY superior.

Please, I beg you, don't drink Summers' "I'm only trying to stimulate debate" Koolade?

Many of you men who are PUSHING this topic ad absurd also need to search your souls ... my agenda is clear, I don't wish for the military or education to be segregated (M/F Black/White) again. Premature conclusions from poorly controlled science can achieve that discrimination if our political leadership "buys into it."

Never again. I will not quit this cause.

[hue]

56. Actually hormones rule

Males and females secrete very different levels of sex hormones--though each sex has a little of the other sex's hormones. Hormones do rule the physiology of the individual and due to lack of historical research we are now finding out that prescription drugs are metabolized differently to certain degrees in women and men--just as they are in children.
There are some structural cerebral differences in men and women also.
This said, SO WHAT!
Womens'scores on intelligence tests are not that much different, and certainly a different approach to the same problem is usually beneficial. I think most women don't really need a scientific breakthrough to know that they think differently than men--ask any woman of any race, culture or creed (I'm serious). But what's so threatening about that??

[Spinoza]

58. I'm sorry, but

I don't recall my comment that possible differences between male and female cognitive functioning (On average; always ON AVERAGE) is in any way "threatening". My point simply is that Summer's comments should also not be construed as "threatening". With the present status of our knowlege, his was a valid and reasonable HYPOTHESIS as to ONE of the POSSIBLE (he was quite clear on this distinction) reasons for the lower numbers of females in certain academic disciplines. This hypothesis that the statistical distributions of men’s and women’s quantitative and spatial abilities are not identical—that the average for men may be a bit higher than the average for women is one that the Academy should be willing to openly consider without inquisitions. He did not deserve to be spanked and made to apologise as if he was a naughty little boy. For Gods sakes, he was speaking at a University, not a madrassa. If Summers is wrong in his hypothesis (which he explicitly stated was possible)how do we determine this if it is "offensive" even to consider it? If he is right,I don't believe truth can be offensive.

[ElectroPrincess]

59. No CONTROLS ... again, these results are interesting but useless ...

You just don't give up, do ya. ;) I can't disrespect that in you because I'm one persistent and determined individual too.

However, I ask you to please take a step back and observe this in a political context. Summers' is both - a highly intelligent and political man. I submit that he KNEW ahead of his controversial presentation that it would not settle well with the majority of members within the scientific community and thereby would easily wash-out into public and political scrutiny.

If you are willing to accept the above, then you should also realize that there are some *real political forces* attempting to turn back the clock with respect to both Women's and Gay American's rights.

Summers' has by his KNOWN controversial statements, created fertile ground for those intelligent and skillful right wing political operatives to forward BLANKET CONCLUSIONS about Women's abilities in academia.

If you accept this as "a good debate" the prejudices that will evolve, valid or not, will spread into both the workplace and the military.

It's easy to look with a "curious" and "no harm/no foul" eye when it's not YOUR PEOPLE (other women) who will be negatively effected by such half-baked extrapolations to behavior that is divorced from the lion's share "well designed" research studies.

Guess if you haven't lived through the 60s and 70s, it's easy for many (even women) to consider my dissent as an over-reaction.

However, if Summers' prejudices are allowed to ferment and result in prejudice and discrimination against women ... the right wing radicals will make this sick science WORK for Gays and African Americans next.

My Point: Please don't let the RW open this Pandora's box? Scientific research itself with it's slow evolution of findings (facts not theories) is a far too complex endeavor (most times so detailed it can become boring at times) to fit in "cute" little cookie cutter sound bytes ... not only with regard to brain functioning between the sexes but in almost every existing scientific inquiry.

[Spinoza]

60. No issues should be considered except the truth.

Falsehood and predjudice, should they exist, can only be combatted by examining them under the light of reason. All your points simply add up to your BELIEF that something else is more important than the truth of the issue under consideration. Why should you, or anyone, have the right to punish Summers? (For the same reason, noone should have the right to punish Churchill.) Read John Stuart Mill "ON LIBERTY".

John Stuart Mill
>If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind. <

[ElectroPrincess]

62. No Sir!

Truth is that I AM A SCIENTIST but not near as intelligent and gifted as Summers' audience of scholars. They were right to be taken aback and insulted by Summers' quoting distributions and other isolated research to support, what you term - men are better at THIS cognitively, while women are better at THAT.

Your (and Dr. Summers') scientific truth is lacking valid methodological studies. Albeit he quoted accurately from his distribution studies, the findings were AGAIN, interesting but useless for making VALID conclusions regarding information processing differences between men and women.

Now, I have already admitted my agenda: I do not want NON scientific partisans to inaccurately extrapolate on what should be WOMEN'S work roles/field; or for our government to again separate the sexes in military service like they did African Americans from whites a quarter century earlier.

No Sir, you are not stating "a truth" but have another motivation.

On Edit: Please know that I support freedom of speech 100%, no way on earth would I wish to silence humankind. Interesting how much is revealed via one's choice of words and/or choice selections for a quote. ;)

Beyond what you define as "the truth" (based on a few aptitude tests and distribution studies that Dr. Summers' cited), what is your motivation for bantering with me?

[Spinoza]

63. What's my motivation?

I love a good argument. Always have, always will. (Now I'm sure you are going to tell me that I have other, hidden motivations--and you know what they are.)

You may well be correct that Dr. Summers' hypothesis lacks valid methodological studies. (Though an assertion does not constitute evidence, much less proof. I will later give you the the names of some scientists who do support his basic speculation.) In that event, your public criticism of his remarks is exactly the correct response. Presumably, people reading this board are benefiting and learning from your comments. However, you would not have this opportunity, and they would not have these benefits, were it not for Sommer's freedom to make these remarks in the first place. Setting up an atmosphere so intimidating, that none in the future would dare make similar remarks, is vicious and immoral and would serve only to DEPRIVE other people of understanding how and why Sommers is in error. (As you believe.)

What difference does it possibly make what "you want" to the question of whether it is right and fair and just to punish Summers for his remarks? Who cares what "you want"?

If I understand your argument correctly, you object to Sommers' right to engage in this type of speculation because you feel that any belief in the existence of innate inborn talents, differentiated by gender, would lead in the political realm to a vicious social-Darwinism which would eventually be used against racial or other minorities. That presumes that one cannot reconcile ANY innate biological differences with a concept of social justice. As the philosopher John Rawls demonstrates, this idea is nonsense. It simply doesn't follow. EVEN IF IT DID FOLLOW, HOWEVER, THE TRUTH SHOULD NOT BE CENSORED. That's where I am partisan.

Actually, what we do know about the sexes does not call for any action that would penalize or constrain one sex or the other. No sex differences yet discovered applies to every last man or every last woman, so generalizations about a sex will always be untrue of many individuals. And notions like "proper role" and "natural place" are scientifically meaningless and give no grounds for restricting freedom.

The fact is research on the biological basis of sex differences has been led by women, not men. Top neuro-scientists in the field include Racquel Gur, Melissa Hines, and Sandra Witelson; Psychologists include Camille Benbow and Dianne Halpern; major social biologists and evolutionary psychologists include Mildred Dickeman, Helen Fisher, Kristen Hawkes and Magdalena Hurtado. (I can name many more.) To the best of my knowledge, all of these scientists would agree Sommer's speculation is a valid subject of study. Nor, I am certain, would they believe that because Sommers is not himself a scientist, he has no right to discuss, as a layperson, some of the discoveries of actual scientists. (Which you may disagree with, but so what.)

What do we know? Men and women are from Africa where they evolved together as a single species. Men and women have all the same genes except for a handful on the Y chromosome. Their average level of general intelligence are the same according to the best psychometric estimates. Thats the big picture. (It should be pointed out that variation in the level of testosterone among different men, or in the same man among different seasons or even different times of day highly correlates with libido, self-confidence and the drive for dominance. This has obvious implications for gender differences.)

The little picture, however, also includes the following differences according to literally hundreds of diverse scientific studies: (Which you may believe are flawed.) Men, on average, are better at mentally rotating objects and maps; women are better at remembering landmarks and the positions of objects. Men are better throwers; women are more dexterous. Men are better at solving mathematical word problems, women at mathematical calculations. Women are more sensitive to sounds and smells, have better depth perception, match shapes faster, and are much better at reading facial expressions and body language. Women are better spellers, retrieve words more fluently,and have a better memory for verbal material.

Many sex differences, of course, have nothing to do with biology. For example, hair style and dress. For all we know, some of the above listed differences may also be just as ephemeral. But to say that Sommers deserves censure for simply questioning whether ALL sex differences, and corresponding occupational choices, derives exclusively from the expectations of parents, playmates, and society, is to enshrine ignorance as against free inquiry. (Which even a layperson can believe in and has the right to talk about.)

Of course, just because many sex differences may be rooted in biology does not mean that one sex is superior, that the differences will emerge for all people in all circumstances, that discrimination against a person based on sex is justified, or that people should be coerced into doing things typical of their sex. But neither are the differences without consequences. Those consequences are a valid topic for discussion in a university environment.

[ElectroPrincess]

64. Just answer ONE question please?

Are you aware of the INTENSE public controversy when Arthur Jensen was promoting his "g" factor?

You have a hidden agenda IF you are aware of this RACIST psychologist et. al., trying to push this correlation data during the 60s and 70s. If it wasn't for almost universal PUBLIC outrage they would have incorporated such so called FACTS into society and governmental programs.

You are intelligent but that does not mean that you do not have an ulterior motive. The membership of DU will have to make their minds up independently of our sniping.

What's your agenda? Everyone has one of some sort. Please don't insult this forum's intelligence by pleading total innocence and objectivity. I submit, many of us don't buy it.

On edit: Reading Bridget Burke's post below drive home the point that Summers' is in the position of an Administrator NOT a research scientists in psychology. Like *, the leader of an large organiztion (The country/A University) is supposed to be a uniter not a divider. Showing his predjudices as the Chair is at the least, inappropriate.

[Spinoza]

79. Just as I predicted,

you know for a fact that I have secret hidden agendas. Also, as I predicted, you know what, in part, they are. Surprise, surprise my agenda is......RACIST.

Actually, you are partially right. I do have a hidden agenda which, treacherously, I did not reveal. While it is true that I love a good debate, my explanation is incomplete. You see, I am an AK amputee with limited mobility. (My operation was performed on March 26, 1986 at SF General by Dr. Sandra Day. A FEMALE!) With limited physical access to others, I am ......lonely. Thats my FULL fucking agenda. Is that okay with you? Do I pass muster with the "DU membership" or will I be purged for the racist shit you have brilliantly discovered me to be? Oh well, if so I have been thru worse in my life.

Now, while I am still allowed to post, lets examine carefully your arguments. Yes, of course I am aware of the Arthur Jensen controversies. I addressed the basic concept in my comments on "Social Darwinism". Perhaps I was not clear.

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but it appears your basic point is that despite any possible scientific veracity, the subject of innate differences among ANY human beings should be taboo because the subject has been twisted to serve the interests and arguments of ACTUAL racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. Apparently, my grandiloquent arguments for "truth" are just too fancy for the dangerous world we live in. Granted, there is evidence that people are different, but since data in the social sciences are never perfect, and since a conclusion of inequality might be used to the worst ends by by racist bigots, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and stick with the null hypothesis that people are identical? Perhaps even if we were CERTAIN that people differ genetically, we might still want to promulgate the fiction that they are the same, because it is less open to abuse? Did I sum up your position accurately?


This argument is based on the fallacy that innate and complete human equality has nothing but good moral implications and a theory of human nature nothing but bad ones. To properly discuss the errors in this belief, I would need to go on for pages. However, again, I would direct you to the work of John Rawls, an impeccable man of the left, who has, in my opinion, conclusively demonstrated the absurdity and inimical consequences of this proposition.

Now it is true that the most sickening associations of a biological conception of human nature are the ones to Nazism. Hitler was undeniably influenced by the bastardized versions of Darwinism and genetics that were popular in the early decades of the 20th century.

The misuse of biology by the Nazis is a reminder that perverted ideas can have horrifying consequences and that intellectuals and scientists have a responsibility to take reasonable care that their ideas not be misused for evil ends. But part of that responsibility is not to trivialize the horror of Nazism by exploiting it for rhetorical clout in academic catfights. Linking the people you disagree with to Nazism (or RACISTS) does nothing for the memory of Hitler's victims or for the effort to prevent other genocides.

AN IDEA IS NOT FALSE OR EVIL BECAUSE THE NAZIS MISUSED IT. AN IDEA IS NOT FALSE OR EVIL BECAUSE RACISTS AND BIGOTS MISUSE IT. IF WE CENSORED IDEAS THAT NAZIS (OR RACISTS IN GENERAL) ABUSE, WE WOULD HAVE TO CENSOR THE STUDY OF EVOLUTION AND GENETICS, PERIOD.

Now, come clean. Isn't that what you are really advocating? Perhaps you too have a hidden agenda you have not fully revealed.

[Psephos]

73. Spinoza - good post

I share your love of a good debate - and am disappointed when posters take a difference of opinion as a personal attack. Some people aren't happy unless they're unhappy.

"There is no rule more invariable than that we are paid
for our suspicions by finding what we suspect."
- Thoreau

You have equal talents for analysis and rhetoric, both high arts too often debased by pretenders.

I'll look for more of your posts.

Peace.

[ElectroPrincess]

75. Oh brother!?! I'm also "in awe" but for a different reason ...

We are talking about an University President, NOT your average research scientist "Joe" or "Jane." But you "good ole'" boys keep pounding home your propaganda. Especially this so called "love of rhetoric." Poor Dear, Dr. Summers! Shame on us DUmmy FemiNazis. :puke:

Spinoza
"Setting up an atmosphere so intimidating, that none in the future would dare make similar remarks, is vicious and immoral and would serve only to DEPRIVE other people of understanding how and why Sommers is in error. (As you believe.)"

:wtf: Over and Out

[Spinoza]

78. Thanks

Peace back to you.

[eridani]

77. Wrong. More than 'a little'

Hormonal regulation is a very complex system that works differently in men and women, but actual levels are tricky to analyze.

The average woman of reproductive age, for instance, usually has roughly 80 times as much circulating testosterone as estradiol. (Men average a factor of 10 higher than that.)

[Bridget Burke]

61. The problem is not just his words--but his actions.

Professors (with tenure, at least) are supposedly allowed to speak out on controversial topics. (Of course, opinions that offend Republicans are more dangerous.)

But Summers is President of the University with administrative power. Does he use his controversial beliefs in hiring decisions? Last month, he was the subject of a faculty meeting:

Yesterday, professors raised issues from the curricular review to the University’s expansion into Allston to Summers’ famous spat with former Fletcher University Professor Cornel R. West ’74. They said Summers’ tenure has been marked by a style of leadership more akin to a for-profit corporation or governmental bureaucracy than an academic institution.

Even the two chairs of Summers’ newly formed task forces on women, while praising him for committing to their cause, took time to issue a more general criticism of the president as well.

Chair of the Task Force on Women Faculty Evelyn M. Hammonds, professor of the history of science and of African and African American studies, called for a “clearing of the air so that we can do our work both effectively and successfully.”

Several professors echoed that sentiment, referring to what they perceived as a toxic atmosphere at Harvard under Summers.

www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=505740

[oppositionmember]

65. Men & women are different - agreed?

So why should this not be expressed in aptitudes as well as hormones?

Some things can't be said - corollary of "yes dear" principle.

[ElectroPrincess]

66. Because dear newbie it WILL be later used by more unseemly

people to GENERALIZE to the entire female population. Just like Jensen and his ilk attempted to do with the races.

Damn, truth is the aim, but science is complex and the results should be *qualified* NOT *generalized* ... otherwise we run the risk of WRONGLY discriminating against an entire subset of humanity.

[Kimber Scott]

68. Who cares? If a woman wants to be an engineer she can be an

engineer. It doesn't depend on what this guy thinks, or what some scholars think, or even what studies show. It depends on her desire, willingness and determination. Same as a man.

If somebody says you aren't capable of doing something and you know you are, do it. Prove them wrong. This comes from a woman who spent 9 years in the Army. Get over it and do what you know you can do. If you spend time worrying about this kind of stuff, you're giving these guys more power than they really have over your life.

[ElectroPrincess]

69. Point taken, thanks. But then there's the realities of the ...

political climate.

This reminds me of the right wingers who always say to minorities, "What's your problem? Follow my example and pull YOURSELF up by the bootstraps."

What would you say to my best woman friend in Airborne school who was washed out for the sin of being "unattractive" to the instructors?

What do you say about University department chairs who are openly misogynistic to their students?

And finally, what can you say about the clear and everyday signs of discrimination against women in the workplace?

Many women forget that we've only been granted the vote since 1920. That is NOT a long period of time in the realm of history.

Nope, I'm no victim but some men would like to keep women pushed down and all the lectures on "pull yourselves up" won't shatter those glass ceilings.

And neither will our silence when a University President demonstrates a clear prejudice toward women's specific aptitudes based on what is, as of yet, UNPROVEN science.

This from a woman who has spent her entire adult life working in male dominated fields. You have to be aggressive and NOT EVER back down to keep what you have obtained in life.

[Kimber Scott]

70. I never said be silent. I only say don't let them get to you - us.

As for injustice, that's the way life is. We can only keep on doing what we know is right. If it doesn't get straight in our time, maybe it will work out better for those behind us.

You have to admit, nobody will get anywhere if they don't take the first step, and the millions that follow after it, themselves. No, never be silent, but don't despair, either. That's all I'm trying to say.

[ElectroPrincess]

71. Thanks, if I let them "get to me" I would have quit long ago ...

And I see you are also an Army Veteran.

Therefore, we both have learned that "God hates a quitter!" :wow:

I appreciate the clarification and fully concur.

Best regards to you and yours :toast: