Re: Local girl makes good

Peter Allen said:

DZ said:

I don't know the extent to which she "refuses to rationalize..." that
innate differences may be at play as well. When Harvard president
suggested that genetic differences between the sexes could contribute
to variation in success in certain fields like mathematics, everybody
went catty, saying how upsetting it is that bright women of Harvard
are being led by someone viewing them this way. IIRC, people went into
tears and rage during his talk. Somebody felt (s)he'd vomit and
promptly left the room. Later the speaker had to apologize and
rephrase, and make it all PC, and even get off the curricular review
process. Some faculty voting ensued labeling him as lacking confidence
in leadership. I found the story upsetting too, but it left me
wondering. Was what happened in disregard for the principle of
academic freedom, which Harvard is supposed to be known for? Was it a
case of conformism, and do innocent sophistry endeavors like the book
above contribute to the acceptance of it?

Difficult to know whether mathematics is male dominated due to
innate differences or not. It certainly is male dominated; but if
you assumed that men and women were similarly good at maths but only
a few women with the ability to do maths chose to, then you'd get
about the distribution of ability that actually exists.

I agree. Note that nowhere I mentioned ability. "Innate differences"
should not exclude differences in preferences, behavior, motivation,
which already show in children at early age. BTW that observation was
particularly upsetting to some attending the talk, who'd like to write
everything off on gender oppression and its "both subtle and obvious"
(quoting from 2 posts up) interactions with race, age, social status,
looks, and what not.

DZ

Quoted message said:

Problem is that ranking mathematicians by ability is very subjective
(is one interesting paper worth more than 10 run-of-the-mill ones,
how much luck was involved?). Then working mathematicians are the
top end of mathematical ability anyway, it's not easy to tell the
difference between the top end of a bell curve with a low mean and
the top end of a bell curve with the mean you'd expect but divided
by about 10.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

DZ said:

I don't know the extent to which she "refuses to rationalize..." that
innate differences may be at play as well. When Harvard president
suggested that genetic differences between the sexes could contribute
to variation in success in certain fields like mathematics, everybody
went catty, saying how upsetting it is that bright women of Harvard
are being led by someone viewing them this way. IIRC, people went into
tears and rage during his talk. Somebody felt (s)he'd vomit and
promptly left the room. Later the speaker had to apologize and
rephrase, and make it all PC, and even get off the curricular review
process. Some faculty voting ensued labeling him as lacking confidence
in leadership. I found the story upsetting too, but it left me
wondering. Was what happened in disregard for the principle of
academic freedom, which Harvard is supposed to be known for? Was it a
case of conformism, and do innocent sophistry endeavors like the book
above contribute to the acceptance of it?

Difficult to know whether mathematics is male dominated due to innate
differences or not. It certainly is male dominated; but if you assumed that
men and women were similarly good at maths but only a few women with the
ability to do maths chose to, then you'd get about the distribution of
ability that actually exists. Problem is that ranking mathematicians by
ability is very subjective (is one interesting paper worth more than 10
run-of-the-mill ones, how much luck was involved?). Then working
mathematicians are the top end of mathematical ability anyway, it's not easy
to tell the difference between the top end of a bell curve with a low mean
and the top end of a bell curve with the mean you'd expect but divided by
about 10.

How dare anyone suggest differences between sexes. Look as violent
crime, or serial killers. It's an outrage that women are not doing
their gentic best to keep up with their male counterparts.

I even hear that they live longer, and are able to bare children.

--

"Cocaine's a hell of a drug" - Rick James

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fish! - of Arcadia. said:

How dare anyone suggest differences between sexes. Look as violent
crime, or serial killers. It's an outrage that women are not doing
their gentic best to keep up with their male counterparts.

I even hear that they live longer, and are able to bare children.

Men can do that, but they get arrested for it.

Seth
--
this is called missing the forest for the trees.
Or just 'being a moron', your call. -- Lyle McDonald

DZ <[email hidden]> wrote in news:24540@
127102878.1265329553.7120.23022.20555:

Quoted message said:

Peter Allen said:

DZ said:

I don't know the extent to which she "refuses to rationalize..." that
innate differences may be at play as well. When Harvard president
suggested that genetic differences between the sexes could contribute
to variation in success in certain fields like mathematics, everybody
went catty, saying how upsetting it is that bright women of Harvard
are being led by someone viewing them this way. IIRC, people went into
tears and rage during his talk. Somebody felt (s)he'd vomit and
promptly left the room. Later the speaker had to apologize and
rephrase, and make it all PC, and even get off the curricular review
process. Some faculty voting ensued labeling him as lacking confidence
in leadership. I found the story upsetting too, but it left me
wondering. Was what happened in disregard for the principle of
academic freedom, which Harvard is supposed to be known for? Was it a
case of conformism, and do innocent sophistry endeavors like the book
above contribute to the acceptance of it?

Difficult to know whether mathematics is male dominated due to
innate differences or not. It certainly is male dominated; but if
you assumed that men and women were similarly good at maths but only
a few women with the ability to do maths chose to, then you'd get
about the distribution of ability that actually exists.

I agree. Note that nowhere I mentioned ability. "Innate differences"
should not exclude differences in preferences, behavior, motivation,
which already show in children at early age. BTW that observation was
particularly upsetting to some attending the talk, who'd like to write
everything off on gender oppression and its "both subtle and obvious"
(quoting from 2 posts up) interactions with race, age, social status,
looks, and what not.

The stupid thing about the Harvard president's comment is that not only
should the question be allowed, but the suggestion is so obviously true.
Of COURSE there are innate differences between the sexes in how they
approach the world, and it would be surprising if that didn't show up in
aptitudes and career choices.

Just consider the cultural cliche of the little boy that takes his watch
apart to find out how it works and can't put it back together, We tell
that story about boys, not girls, and 30 years of gender-neutral
upbringing haven't changed it. It's no surprise if the attitude that leads
to taking watches apart later leads to an interest in hard science and
mechanics.

And bias may be (probably is) present in the hard sciences but it was just
as present in, say, psychology 50 years ago. Women were able to overcome
existing bias in psychology, sociology, and many other fields; that they
haven't in hard science, IT, and math suggests something else is going on.

The trouble is that people think that any of this should change behavior,
and it shouldn't. Saying women as a class are less interested in hard
science doesn't mean that there won't be the individual woman who is a
genius at it--there have been plenty throughout history, and we need all
of them we can get. You could even argue that because they are likely to
remain a minority, we have to do extra work to ensure they don't get
overlooked. But we don't have to angst if we never achieve parity.

But I haven't read Krista's book. Maybe she addresses all this.

Hugh

--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi"😉

Hugh Beyer said:

DZ <[email hidden]> wrote in news:24540@
127102878.1265329553.7120.23022.20555:

Quoted message said:

Peter Allen said:

DZ wrote:
> I don't know the extent to which she "refuses to rationalize..." that
> innate differences may be at play as well. When Harvard president
> suggested that genetic differences between the sexes could contribute
> to variation in success in certain fields like mathematics, everybody
> went catty, saying how upsetting it is that bright women of Harvard
> are being led by someone viewing them this way. IIRC, people went into
> tears and rage during his talk. Somebody felt (s)he'd vomit and
> promptly left the room. Later the speaker had to apologize and
> rephrase, and make it all PC, and even get off the curricular review
> process. Some faculty voting ensued labeling him as lacking confidence
> in leadership. I found the story upsetting too, but it left me
> wondering. Was what happened in disregard for the principle of
> academic freedom, which Harvard is supposed to be known for? Was it a
> case of conformism, and do innocent sophistry endeavors like the book
> above contribute to the acceptance of it?

Difficult to know whether mathematics is male dominated due to
innate differences or not. It certainly is male dominated; but if
you assumed that men and women were similarly good at maths but only
a few women with the ability to do maths chose to, then you'd get
about the distribution of ability that actually exists.

I agree. Note that nowhere I mentioned ability. "Innate differences"
should not exclude differences in preferences, behavior, motivation,
which already show in children at early age. BTW that observation was
particularly upsetting to some attending the talk, who'd like to write
everything off on gender oppression and its "both subtle and obvious"
(quoting from 2 posts up) interactions with race, age, social status,
looks, and what not.

The stupid thing about the Harvard president's comment is that not only
should the question be allowed, but the suggestion is so obviously true.
Of COURSE there are innate differences between the sexes in how they
approach the world, and it would be surprising if that didn't show up in
aptitudes and career choices.

Just consider the cultural cliche of the little boy that takes his watch
apart to find out how it works and can't put it back together, We tell
that story about boys, not girls, and 30 years of gender-neutral
upbringing haven't changed it. It's no surprise if the attitude that leads
to taking watches apart later leads to an interest in hard science and
mechanics.

And bias may be (probably is) present in the hard sciences but it was just
as present in, say, psychology 50 years ago. Women were able to overcome
existing bias in psychology, sociology, and many other fields; that they
haven't in hard science, IT, and math suggests something else is going on.

The trouble is that people think that any of this should change behavior,
and it shouldn't. Saying women as a class are less interested in hard
science doesn't mean that there won't be the individual woman who is a
genius at it--there have been plenty throughout history, and we need all
of them we can get. You could even argue that because they are likely to
remain a minority, we have to do extra work to ensure they don't get
overlooked. But we don't have to angst if we never achieve parity.

But I haven't read Krista's book. Maybe she addresses all this.

You might be interested in reading "The Inequality Taboo" by Charles Murray.

<http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html>

--
Jim Janney

I f'ed her.

Jim Janney said:

Hugh Beyer said:

DZ <[email hidden]> wrote in news:24540@
127102878.1265329553.7120.23022.20555:

Quoted message said:

Peter Allen <[email hidden]> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> I don't know the extent to which she "refuses to rationalize..." that
>> innate differences may be at play as well. When Harvard president
>> suggested that genetic differences between the sexes could contribute
>> to variation in success in certain fields like mathematics, everybody
>> went catty, saying how upsetting it is that bright women of Harvard
>> are being led by someone viewing them this way. IIRC, people went into
>> tears and rage during his talk. Somebody felt (s)he'd vomit and
>> promptly left the room. Later the speaker had to apologize and
>> rephrase, and make it all PC, and even get off the curricular review
>> process. Some faculty voting ensued labeling him as lacking confidence
>> in leadership. I found the story upsetting too, but it left me
>> wondering. Was what happened in disregard for the principle of
>> academic freedom, which Harvard is supposed to be known for? Was it a
>> case of conformism, and do innocent sophistry endeavors like the book
>> above contribute to the acceptance of it?
>
> Difficult to know whether mathematics is male dominated due to
> innate differences or not. It certainly is male dominated; but if
> you assumed that men and women were similarly good at maths but only
> a few women with the ability to do maths chose to, then you'd get
> about the distribution of ability that actually exists.

I agree. Note that nowhere I mentioned ability. "Innate differences"
should not exclude differences in preferences, behavior, motivation,
which already show in children at early age. BTW that observation was
particularly upsetting to some attending the talk, who'd like to write
everything off on gender oppression and its "both subtle and obvious"
(quoting from 2 posts up) interactions with race, age, social status,
looks, and what not.

The stupid thing about the Harvard president's comment is that not only
should the question be allowed, but the suggestion is so obviously true.
Of COURSE there are innate differences between the sexes in how they
approach the world, and it would be surprising if that didn't show up in
aptitudes and career choices.

Just consider the cultural cliche of the little boy that takes his watch
apart to find out how it works and can't put it back together, We tell
that story about boys, not girls, and 30 years of gender-neutral
upbringing haven't changed it. It's no surprise if the attitude that leads
to taking watches apart later leads to an interest in hard science and
mechanics.

And bias may be (probably is) present in the hard sciences but it was just
as present in, say, psychology 50 years ago. Women were able to overcome
existing bias in psychology, sociology, and many other fields; that they
haven't in hard science, IT, and math suggests something else is going on.

The trouble is that people think that any of this should change behavior,
and it shouldn't. Saying women as a class are less interested in hard
science doesn't mean that there won't be the individual woman who is a
genius at it--there have been plenty throughout history, and we need all
of them we can get. You could even argue that because they are likely to
remain a minority, we have to do extra work to ensure they don't get
overlooked. But we don't have to angst if we never achieve parity.

But I haven't read Krista's book. Maybe she addresses all this.

You might be interested in reading "The Inequality Taboo" by Charles Murray.

<http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html>

TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."

Peter Allen said:

DZ said:

I don't know the extent to which she "refuses to rationalize..." that
innate differences may be at play as well. When Harvard president
suggested that genetic differences between the sexes could contribute
to variation in success in certain fields like mathematics, everybody
went catty, saying how upsetting it is that bright women of Harvard
are being led by someone viewing them this way. IIRC, people went into
tears and rage during his talk. Somebody felt (s)he'd vomit and
promptly left the room. Later the speaker had to apologize and
rephrase, and make it all PC, and even get off the curricular review
process. Some faculty voting ensued labeling him as lacking confidence
in leadership. I found the story upsetting too, but it left me
wondering. Was what happened in disregard for the principle of
academic freedom, which Harvard is supposed to be known for? Was it a
case of conformism, and do innocent sophistry endeavors like the book
above contribute to the acceptance of it?

Difficult to know whether mathematics is male dominated due to innate
differences or not. It certainly is male dominated; but if you assumed that
men and women were similarly good at maths

There are gender differences in performance as well as many other
measurable psychological variables. In most cases the differences are
not significant, but in a few they are significant. If you look at the
absolute pinacle of performance in a field, you're going to find those
top positions occupied by people who are at the right hand end of the
bell curve. In this case, there are more men in the last few standard
deviations of the normal curve than there are women due to innate gender
differences as one contributing factor. To deny this as a factor is to
deny science altogether, in which case I would hope the people uttering
such nonsense like 'gender differences do not exist' would stick to
politics and social engineering and leave the science to those better
qualified.

Quoted message said:

but only a few women with the
ability to do maths chose to, then you'd get about the distribution of
ability that actually exists. Problem is that ranking mathematicians by
ability is very subjective (is one interesting paper worth more than 10
run-of-the-mill ones, how much luck was involved?). Then working
mathematicians are the top end of mathematical ability anyway, it's not easy
to tell the difference between the top end of a bell curve with a low mean
and the top end of a bell curve with the mean you'd expect but divided by
about 10.

--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/