The Summers Controversy

[Guest MikeSC]

As part of my one-day return --- yes, I know you don't care --- I'll mention this, since it's not on the first page. I actually assumed this would lead to a discussion here, but apparently not. Oh well.

 

In a seminar dealing with the question of the lack of women in the highest levels of study of scientific and engineering fields, he (Harvard Pres. Larry Summers) listed 3 possible problems: 1) inherent gender bias, 2) a lack of a desire for women to give up their personal lives to pursue it, and 3) innate genetic differences.

 

He argued that #1 was highly unlikely, as female scientists and engineers are in demand and an institute of higher learning would be insane to willingly deny women positions that numerous others want. Thus, he argued that the final 2 options were worth considering. He even stated that while he'd like to research on the 3rd option, he hopes that #3 is not the case.

 

Unfortunately, his comments that there might be innate genetic differences between men and women that explains the lack of women in elite scientific positions caused MIT Professor Nancy Hopkins to storm out, stating that she left because such comments made her "physically ill".

 

Now, I'm not going to discuss that she, sadly, lived up to every negative stereotype of women out there --- an inability to handle a discussion of a topic that is actually very much in the realm of study nowadays.

 

So, does anybody think that Summers might be right? Geneticists have argued that the difference between men and women is considerable (about 1-2% genetically), especially when compared to the miniscule difference between blacks and whites (considerably less than 1%). Is it OK for professors to claim bias in order to silence serious academic discussion?

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

It's one of those taboo subjects that will probably never be fully investigated, due to fears of alienations or being accused of bigotry or sexism.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think women in general are just not as willing to give up their lives for their profession. I think when you look at other jobs men are more likely to work graveyard shifts and to go work on some oil platform out in the middle of nowhere.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I believe that in general, on average, there's bound to be a difference in the sexes, however significant. I mean, I'm sure most women would admit that they're not as strong as men are on a whole. Naturally that is, as in the average man and woman. It's obvious that there are physical differences between the sexes, advantages or not, depending on what they are. So is it that much of a stretch to say that there are inherent gender differences in regards to psychological and intellectual categories? I don't think so.

[Guest Vitamin X]

This is a bit of a touchy subject, but it's one that I'm not sure any of us here are qualified to argue, considering the lack of information regarding the innate genetic differences in question. The question of it being a lack of desire for a woman to pursue it is a bit more of a sociological issue, but unless the third one can be proven or not, using deductive reasoning, the only logical conclusion is that they're not willing to give up their lives for their profession. However, it does deserve heavy consideration because women as a whole tend to be more abstract-minded while male intelligence is stronger in the field of concrete thinking (aka common sense in some cases as some of us would know personally..) and this could affect performance in fields of study such as engineering which are more absolute.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

As part of my one-day return --- yes, I know you don't care --- I'll mention this, since it's not on the first page. I actually assumed this would lead to a discussion here, but apparently not. Oh well.

 

In a seminar dealing with the question of the lack of women in the highest levels of study of scientific and engineering fields, he (Harvard Pres. Larry Summers) listed 3 possible problems: 1) inherent gender bias, 2) a lack of a desire for women to give up their personal lives to pursue it, and 3) innate genetic differences.

 

He argued that #1 was highly unlikely, as female scientists and engineers are in demand and an institute of higher learning would be insane to willingly deny women positions that numerous others want. Thus, he argued that the final 2 options were worth considering. He even stated that while he'd like to research on the 3rd option, he hopes that #3 is not the case.

 

Unfortunately, his comments that there might be innate genetic differences between men and women that explains the lack of women in elite scientific positions caused MIT Professor Nancy Hopkins to storm out, stating that she left because such comments made her "physically ill".

 

Now, I'm not going to discuss that she, sadly, lived up to every negative stereotype of women out there --- an inability to handle a discussion of a topic that is actually very much in the realm of study nowadays.

 

So, does anybody think that Summers might be right? Geneticists have argued that the difference between men and women is considerable (about 1-2% genetically), especially when compared to the miniscule difference between blacks and whites (considerably less than 1%). Is it OK for professors to claim bias in order to silence serious academic discussion?

-=Mike

I can only comment on my own area of specialization (mathematics), but there is non-trivial (although hardly definitive) evidence that women tend to be stronger in algebra and logic, while men are better at analysis and geometry. There are several arguments one can make both for and against this statement, as well as several explanations as to why it might be true beyond genetics, but it's an interesting observation.

 

One other thing that one notices about mathematics is that very few native americans, blacks, and southeast asians are found in the upper echelons of the subject. On the other hand, it's not just a case of "whites only": arabs, Indians, the Chinese, and the Japanese are all very strong in mathematics.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

As part of my one-day return --- yes, I know you don't care --- I'll mention this, since it's not on the first page. I actually assumed this would lead to a discussion here, but apparently not. Oh well.

 

In a seminar dealing with the question of the lack of women in the highest levels of study of scientific and engineering fields, he (Harvard Pres. Larry Summers) listed 3 possible problems: 1) inherent gender bias, 2) a lack of a desire for women to give up their personal lives to pursue it, and 3) innate genetic differences.

 

He argued that #1 was highly unlikely, as female scientists and engineers are in demand and an institute of higher learning would be insane to willingly deny women positions that numerous others want. Thus, he argued that the final 2 options were worth considering. He even stated that while he'd like to research on the 3rd option, he hopes that #3 is not the case.

 

Unfortunately, his comments that there might be innate genetic differences between men and women that explains the lack of women in elite scientific positions caused MIT Professor Nancy Hopkins to storm out, stating that she left because such comments made her "physically ill".

 

Now, I'm not going to discuss that she, sadly, lived up to every negative stereotype of women out there --- an inability to handle a discussion of a topic that is actually very much in the realm of study nowadays.

 

So, does anybody think that Summers might be right? Geneticists have argued that the difference between men and women is considerable (about 1-2% genetically), especially when compared to the miniscule difference between blacks and whites (considerably less than 1%). Is it OK for professors to claim bias in order to silence serious academic discussion?

        -=Mike

I can only comment on my own area of specialization (mathematics), but there is non-trivial (although hardly definitive) evidence that women tend to be stronger in algebra and logic, while men are better at analysis and geometry. There are several arguments one can make both for and against this statement, as well as several explanations as to why it might be true beyond genetics, but it's an interesting observation.

 

One other thing that one notices about mathematics is that very few native americans, blacks, and southeast asians are found in the upper echelons of the subject. On the other hand, it's not just a case of "whites only": arabs, Indians, the Chinese, and the Japanese are all very strong in mathematics.

Hmm? Lots of Indians are strong in math. Isn't that Southeast Asia?

[Justice 0]

SE Asia = Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam. India is more of it's own cultural zone than anything else.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

SE Asia = Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam. India is more of it's own cultural zone than anything else.

Okay, but I still disagree, I think the reason behind it is more due to sociological evidence as opposed to genetic. Not as many Thai people in Canada as Chinese would be the reason why they aren't as successful in terms of school and such. I don't think the fact that they're Thai has anything to do with it.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

SE Asia = Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam. India is more of it's own cultural zone than anything else.

Okay, but I still disagree, I think the reason behind it is more due to sociological evidence as opposed to genetic. Not as many Thai people in Canada as Chinese would be the reason why they aren't as successful in terms of school and such. I don't think the fact that they're Thai has anything to do with it.

I mean worldwide. The strong centers of math have traditionally been in Europe, North America, Japan, China, India, and the Middle East.

 

And I live in the United States now, not Canada.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

SE Asia = Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam. India is more of it's own cultural zone than anything else.

Okay, but I still disagree, I think the reason behind it is more due to sociological evidence as opposed to genetic. Not as many Thai people in Canada as Chinese would be the reason why they aren't as successful in terms of school and such. I don't think the fact that they're Thai has anything to do with it.

I mean worldwide. The strong centers of math have traditionally been in Europe, North America, Japan, China, India, and the Middle East.

 

And I live in the United States now, not Canada.

Well I live in Canada.

[EricMM 0]

I don't believe that there is enough "difference" between men and women, Thai and Chinese, or anything else to make a person less or more qualified for science.

 

I think the differences are 100% sociological.

 

In America, most women are raised differently than most men are. More emphasis is placed upon a doctorate in certain cultures than others.

 

I think that if you raised two infants in a sociological vacuum, be them people from ANY walk of life on this earth, from day one, one could expect them to be equally qualified scientists.

 

I dunno why this harvard guy seems desperate to discount society.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't believe that there is enough "difference" between men and women, Thai and Chinese, or anything else to make a person less or more qualified for science.

 

I think the differences are 100% sociological.

 

In America, most women are raised differently than most men are. More emphasis is placed upon a doctorate in certain cultures than others.

 

I think that if you raised two infants in a sociological vacuum, be them people from ANY walk of life on this earth, from day one, one could expect them to be equally qualified scientists.

 

I dunno why this harvard guy seems desperate to discount society.

He mentioned a story about trying to give his daughter toy trucks, and she referred to them as mommy and daddy truck.

 

We've heard, for years, that women have skills that make them better at certain occupations than men.

 

Is it unfathomable that, considering that, there are certain areas that they aren't as strong at?

 

There are numerous studies that indicate that men are better at spatial reasoning.

 

Whether it's the case or not --- isn't it a worthwhile field to study?

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

Why are there so few female scientists, at the highest level? Probably the same reason we've never had a female President.

[Guest BDC]

I don't believe that there is enough "difference" between men and women, Thai and Chinese, or anything else to make a person less or more qualified for science.

 

I think the differences are 100% sociological.

 

In America, most women are raised differently than most men are.  More emphasis is placed upon a doctorate in certain cultures than others.

 

I think that if you raised two infants in a sociological vacuum, be them people from ANY walk of life on this earth, from day one, one could expect them to be equally qualified scientists.

 

I dunno why this harvard guy seems desperate to discount society.

He mentioned a story about trying to give his daughter toy trucks, and she referred to them as mommy and daddy truck.

 

We've heard, for years, that women have skills that make them better at certain occupations than men.

 

Is it unfathomable that, considering that, there are certain areas that they aren't as strong at?

 

There are numerous studies that indicate that men are better at spatial reasoning.

 

Whether it's the case or not --- isn't it a worthwhile field to study?

-=Mike

Most of the time, when it is examined, it's done so in fields that are more physical. The first one I can think of seeing on television was firefighters. Men had to be able to bust through a door with an axe in thirty seconds. The women doing it didn't. It was a Dateline from the mid-90s if I remember right.

 

I'll admit to not having looked terribly hard, but I haven't heard anything about the differences between men and women in academic fields.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Well, firstly I think that it is rediculous that he took criticism for bringing this up. Challenging thoughts and trying to come up with new ways of looking at things is exactly what should happen at one of the premier institutions in the world.

 

That being said, I disagree with his premise. I think it is obvious that in general men are physically stronger than women, however, there is an evolutionary purpose for that. I don't see an evolutionary purpose for men to be inherently better at math and science.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I never saw women as inferior to men in math and sciences fields ever ... ever.

 

Oops, wrong oppressed minority. Nevermind.

 

Why are you only gracing us with your presence for one day? Shoot, I was too late, SC is gone again...

[Guest Loss]

Do you think the problem may be more of a sociological one than a scientific one? Admittedly, I haven't read anything concrete on the subject, but my first instinct would be to say that women aren't encouraged to go into science as much as men, which may be why there are fewer female scientists. We've definitely made enormous social progress in terms of gender equality in the post-WW2 era, but there are still roles both men and women are somewhat expected to play. I wonder if a study has been done to show that the reason there are more female secretaries than male secretaries is because they have stronger organizational skills.

[Special K 0]

Let me weigh in:

I'm an engineer. In my subject in my class, we had 1 female (who was incredibly smart), 36 males. Look at the enrollment in the best tech schools like MIT and Cal Tech. it's like 80-90% guys. There are gender differences. Maybe women just aren't as interested the tech and science fields. Slightly higher english and lower math scores for women on average doesn't explain the huge discrepancy. And it's not like women are flunking out of MIT and Cal Tech, they're just not interested.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I was thinking about this in more practical terms. The mere fact that women are the only ones that can give birth is just too much to balance against the time it would take to plan, train, and execute a successful career. While there are always exceptions to the rule...

 

So it's really just a matter of having time to do one or the other. Cuz it'll take even longer, I suppose, to try and do both and do well at it.

[mister foozel 0]

Why are there so few female scientists, at the highest level? Probably the same reason we've never had a female President.

Women lack decision-making skills?

[Skywarp! 0]

Why are there so few female scientists, at the highest level? Probably the same reason we've never had a female President.

For being President, the political elite has always been a good 'ol boys club. It has more to do with that then probably anything. And if you think about it, Elanor Roosevelt and Hilary Clinton were pretty much honorary Presidents. And let's not forget about Hilary's goal in '08. It's scary, but it could be reality.