DescentBB

Recently Harvard President Larry Summers suggested in the course of a prolonged informal discussion the idea that perhaps females were less represented in the sciences because of inherent differences in their brains.

An uproar ensued; Summers felt the need to apologize (or at least clarify his remarks). Fifty Harvard faculty signed a petition decrying their leader's statement.

Well, might he not be right? And why would the faculty at Harvard not wish to simply discuss this issue in the spirit of academic progress and understanding. SUPPOSED to be an institution of higher education. After all this WAS a conference to discuss the under-representation of women in the sciences.

So why is that some people think that men and women can't be different in their brains. What tenets of modernist orthodoxy are upset with this thesis? Saying that the average is different between the two genders doesn't say ANYTHING about whether some individuals (females in this case) can't excel, and even be in the top rank in the sciences.

Too bad that our universities can't teach our children to think for themselves anymore, or even to ask difficult questions, without fearing a torrent of criticism.

dissent wrote:What tenets of modernist orthodoxy are upset with this thesis?

"Everybody is equal" -- where, by "equal", they mean "identical in every aspect".

It's hard for some people to accept the fact that, while we all have equal worth, we sometimes have different functions and different abilities. They might accept that different individuals have different aptitudes, but Hillary* forbid that there might be differences between the sexes or races. No, that would be sexist and/or racist, and we know the universe isn't sexist or racist, because that would be evil.

*the deity they hold in highest regard...

Ah yes, Larry Summers. A Clinton appointee. Would you expect anything less from someone associated with Bill "Spots" Clinton?

Aha! So if we combine Woodchip's statement with Lothar's we get...Lothar is pro-Clinton!

This recent bruhaha over this guy's statements reminds me of when the book "The Bell Curve" was published. It makes people's heads explode when they try to be both scientifically enlightened and politically correct.

woodchip wrote:Ah yes, Larry Summers. A Clinton appointee. Would you expect anything less from someone associated with Bill "Spots" Clinton?

Ow! Your knee jerked so hard it hit me all the way over here!

When will the politically-correct "intelligentsia" and the feminazis wake up and realize the simple fact: men and women are not exactly alike. There are fundamental differences in their psychology and behavior. Of course, many individual exceptions exist and can be pointed out, but the fact remains that men and women are not the same. This issue is completely separate from equality; I wish people would stop trying to treat it as such.

*cough*TitleIX*cough*

Genghis wrote:Aha! So if we combine Woodchip's statement with Lothar's we get...Lothar is pro-Clinton!

Please tell me you know what sarcasm is...

Feminism is a social science. Biological distinctions are of no use. What is studied is gender, not sex.

Also, the word "feminazi" is offensive to me.

Top Gun wrote:When will the politically-correct "intelligentsia" and the feminazis wake up and realize the simple fact: men and women are not exactly alike. There are fundamental differences in their psychology and behavior. Of course, many individual exceptions exist and can be pointed out, but the fact remains that men and women are not the same. This issue is completely separate from equality; I wish people would stop trying to treat it as such.

*cough*TitleIX*cough*

Damn...doesn't happen often, but we caught a mutual moment

kufyit wrote:Also, the word "feminazi" is offensive to me.

Good. If the shoe fits...

kufyit wrote:Also, the word "feminazi" is offensive to me.

Raarrrrr!!!

Cool! Secular fundamentalists!

Lothar wrote:Please tell me you know what sarcasm is...

Of course I do! My statement was an excellent example of sarcasm. Why didn't you get it? Don't you know sarcasm when you see it?

Lothar wrote:It's hard for some people to accept the fact that, while we all have equal worth, we sometimes have different functions and different abilities.

Now I could be mistaken. I did not read your above sentence as sarcasm, and if you meant it to be you might need to work on your presentation.

statisticly, using Jungian terms (i've lost everyone already yes? ^_^):

in all societys the THINKING function is prodominantly preferred by males. and the opposite FEELING function is prefered by women. in america it's this way %70 of the time: meaning %70 of men have THINKING as either their primary or secondary functions, the same with women and the FEELING function.

the INTUITION function is a prefered function for scientists, it's common among scientists. both the INTUITION and THINKING function being the 2 prefered functions, this is what's called the NT or "Rational" personality.
they generally are VERY pragmatic, and impecible with logic. The INTUITION and THINKING functions are prettymuch the quintisential generalised "scientist" personality as a result.
INTUITION mixed with FEELING (instead of THINKING) is called the NF or "Idealist" personality, they are also represented among sciences. although i would imagine they would be LESS represented, for those with a dominant THINKING function are the ultimate "non biased desision makers" .

that may have been hella-confusing. but what i'm basically saying is that stastically the predominantly MALE personalitys are more suited for making impersonal (read-unbiased) desisions.

sorry i'm not feeling very good at explaining things at this moment.
(some further reading perhaps: the distribution of personlaity types in America)

note:
the THINKING function simply refers to making desisions of an impersonal nature. while the FEELING function refers to making desisions based on how it will effect others.

Interesting. Other data seems to indicate that men tend to lean conservative, and women tend to lean liberal, and given the explanation above, that makes sense. Conservatives tend to think more than feel, and liberals tend to feel more than think. Tying all that together pretty much backs up the "Girlie-men" references to liberal males, at least by statistical average. Science can be fun

Drakona wrote:Cool! Secular fundamentalists!

LOL!

There was a opinion piece on NPR the other day where the speaker (I forget who he was) held the same opinion as most of those posting in this thread, myself included. He sited many studies that have shown that men in general tend to do better with math and women in general tend to do better with language.

He went on to point out that this is only one factor that could be used to possibly explain why women are under represented in the sciences. Another is the gender biases we are all raised with. As an example, he pointed out that girls are more likely to be read to and talked to as babies and children. This may explain why women tend to do better with language.

Anyway, I am sure many of you can explain these things better than I can. I just thought it was interesting. I also thought it interesting NPR would have someone on who thought Larry Summers had nothing to apologize for.

Another explanation of why girls wind up not getting into the science are a school related bias. I believe somewhere I have read that girls would be more interested in science if they were to go to all girl schools so as not to have the boy distraction issue surround them. In our culture girls have an awful lot of pressure as to looks and how they dress. Remove such distractions and girls will do as well as boys in the sciences.

One of the other studies this guy sited was one in which two groups of people took identical math tests. Each group had an equal number of boys and girls (I am not sure about other factors such as education or socioeconomic level). One group was told that the test had a gender bias built in and the other group was told that the test had no gender bias. There was no gender bias built in. The women in the gender bias group did significant worse that the girls in the other group. In other words, when the girls were told that there was gender bias in the test (even thought there wasnâ??t) they looked for it, found it, and their scores were lower as a result. This would tend to support what Chip said about all girl schools.

roid wrote:statisticly, using Jungian terms...the THINKING function is prodominantly preferred by males... and the opposite FEELING function is prefered by women.
...the INTUITION function is a prefered function for scientists, it's common among scientists.

You're absolutely correct, about the differences between the "Thinking"/"Feeling"/"Intuition" functions, and the statistics about how males and females tend to prefer them. (Study in this subject area is actually pretty fascinating!)

But, it's a huge leap from there to the conclusion in question:

Recently Harvard President Larry Summers suggested in the course of a prolonged informal discussion the idea that perhaps females were less represented in the sciences because of inherent differences in their brains.

I'll agree with the fact that (on average!) men tend to gravitate toward math and science, and that women don't score as well on standardized math exams. Those are some well-documented statistics.

The pertinent question then is, "Why?"

Biologists, psychologists, and other groups in various scientific communities have been studying this question for many, many years. And still we don't have a firm answer.

Yes, I know... studies have been made that indicate there may be biological reasons the female brain often tends toward emotional personal-oriented "feeling" functions (similarly for the male brain and logical "thinking" functions).

But then again, there are social factors as well. There distinct differences in the way young girls are treated, beginning even at birth. For example, as mentioned above, girls are held closer and talked to more often, which reinforces that "feeling" function. And when it comes to school, it has been statistically shown that young girls are encouraged differently than young boys, who are more often pushed toward math and science (having been a teacher, I've seen this firsthand).

Main Point --> So, back to the original topic: is the accurate statement "biological and social factors create differences in the way males and females think, and this affects their success in mathematics and science" equivalent to what Summers said? I think not.

He may not have even meant it, but he basically implied, "the female brain does not have the same logical capabilities as those of the male brain", or in other words, "females are just less intelligent when it comes to science". That's what caused so much chaos, and I think the reaction is pretty justified, especially when you consider his position at such a high-level academic institution.

I dunno, Foil. For most of my life I've been in the nurture over nature camp. But in the last few years I've seen a lot of kids growing up, and I've seen a lot of examples of nature over nurture.

Interesting. I'm a bit of the opposite: growing up, I thought "nature" had more influence, but my own experiences have shifted my thoughts on the matter toward the "nurture" side just a bit.

But as I think we all know, the truth is: it's some of both. The 'debate' is over the relative influence of each...

If I wasn't clear, I didn't mean to say that the reasons for what we're discussing are all "nurture" (or all "nature" for that matter). I meant to point out the reasons Summers' statement was so inflammatory.

I think people overreacted to Summer's statement.

We know it's a nature-and-nurture thing. People have focused almost exclusively on the nurture side, trying to eliminate any differences there, and wondered why there's still a difference. Well gee, if it's not nurture, maybe there's some natural reason -- like, women's brains are simply wired differently than mens so that, on average, they're less interested or competent in math / engineering.

Nobody *really* had reason to suspect he was implying women were stupid overall, or anything like that. But, he was correct when he implied that women are generally less intelligent in certain fields. The fact that such a statement causes chaos just shows how out-of-touch certain academic communities are. Women really *are*, on average, less intelligent in certain fields than men and men really *are*, on average, less intelligent in certain other fields than women. (That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions -- you all know my wife, for example.) The question is, how big is the aforementioned gap, and how much of it is biological vs. how much is environmental?

Lothar wrote:...if it's not nurture, maybe there's some natural reason -- like, women's brains are simply wired differently than mens so that, on average, they're less interested or competent in math / engineering.

Okay.. "less interested"?
Yes! I agree. There are both biological (nature) and environmental (nurture) factors that affect how math and science appeal to the female mind.

But.. "less competent"?
As in "less mental ability"?
As in "discounting any other factors, men are just plain smarter (at math/logic/etc.)"?
No, no, no, no... please tell me you don't subscribe to that idea, especially since you have a close relationship with such an mathematically-intelligent wife.

To me and to the faculty at Harvard, I think, the use of words/phrases like "less intelligent" and "less competent" (even just speaking in the context of math/science) imply that you're talking about inherent mental ability. In other words, you're inferring that it boils down to a "nature"/"biological" issue in the end.

I mean, I thought you just agreed that the causes for the difference are some *combination* of the nature/nurture forces we're talking about, right? It just doesn't seem like that's the case when you use terminology that way.

I'm not trying to debate semantics; I just believe that it's inaccurate to imply that it's fundamentally a biological issue, when we can't say that with any certainty due to all the factors involved.

Foil wrote:But.. "less competent"?
As in "less mental ability"?
As in "discounting any other factors, men are just plain smarter (at math/logic/etc.)"?
No, no, no, no... please tell me you don't subscribe to that idea

I don't subscribe to the idea that *all* women are less competent than *all* men at math, no. And I don't subscribe to the idea that *all* of the difference is inherent, or that *all* of it is environmental.

I do subscribe to at least the POSSIBILITY that women's brains, on average, are wired such that they have less mathematical ability, on average, than men. Maybe they're not -- but it's foolish to ignore the possibility that they are.

We have no problem with the idea that women's bodies are, on average, less muscular than men's (in certain ways.) We have no problem with the idea that this is, in fact, inherent (genetic / hormonal), and will therefore remain no matter how gender-neutral we make society. But somehow the idea that our brains might differ is offensive to some people... all I can say there is that people have bought into too much PC crap. If the idea that men and women might have inherent differences offends you or upsets you, then you're going to have a problem with reality. We have different genes, which make different proteins in different amounts, which might in fact lead to inherent differences in both the physical and mental realms.

I'm not saying there's a 100% certain link that shows women have inherently less aptitude than men in the mathematical sciences. All I'm saying is, the possibility exists, and there's good reason to suspect it. I'm not saying the discrepancy we see today is entirely explained by this. All I'm saying is, it has to be taken seriously when setting goals -- it's foolish to shoot for 50/50 and complain it's not being met if there's an inherent 70/30 baseline. As long as people are too busy being offended to take the idea seriously, though, we're going to find ourselves consistantly disappointed with female enrollment in certain areas.

I don't think it's lack of ability. I think it's lack of interest. Though almost every math teacher I've had has been a woman, so who knows?

Foil wrote:
I'll agree with the fact that (on average!) men tend to gravitate toward math and science, and that women don't score as well on standardized math exams. Those are some well-documented statistics.

The pertinent question then is, "Why?"

Biologists, psychologists, and other groups in various scientific communities have been studying this question for many, many years. And still we don't have a firm answer.

Yes, I know... studies have been made that indicate there may be biological reasons the female brain often tends toward emotional personal-oriented "feeling" functions (similarly for the male brain and logical "thinking" functions).

But then again, there are social factors as well. There distinct differences in the way young girls are treated, beginning even at birth. For example, as mentioned above, girls are held closer and talked to more often, which reinforces that "feeling" function. And when it comes to school, it has been statistically shown that young girls are encouraged differently than young boys, who are more often pushed toward math and science (having been a teacher, I've seen this firsthand).

Main Point --> So, back to the original topic: is the accurate statement "biological and social factors create differences in the way males and females think, and this affects their success in mathematics and science" equivalent to what Summers said? I think not.

He may not have even meant it, but he basically implied, "the female brain does not have the same logical capabilities as those of the male brain", or in other words, "females are just less intelligent when it comes to science". That's what caused so much chaos, and I think the reaction is pretty justified, especially when you consider his position at such a high-level academic institution.

Disagree. Because you are missing an important word in the first sentence of your last paragraph. It may well be that the AVERAGE female brain does not have the same logical (read computational/spatial) capabilities as those of the AVERAGE male brain. Adding the concept of average makes all the difference between what you say he implied and what I just said. Certainly this is a multivariate problem (nature AND nurture). Just because the AVERAGE's are not the same does not indicate in any way that there are not individuals in the population who cannot be above (and below) the average. I've had the priviledge of knowing and working with quite a few of the above average science and math inclined females in the course work I've taken.

So I say go ahead and encourage there to be more females in the sciences and math. More is good. The issue with the brouhaha is that these so called academics took such umbrage at anyone suggesting that nature was part of this debate.

hmm, won't be long til the term 'glass ceiling' is used.

Glass ceiling. Dang Ferno, you're right.

Wow... I'm gonna have to get in some clarification, because I'm still getting misunderstood.

First of all, I need to establish a couple of things:
1. I'm not speaking up here out of a desire to be "PC", or to say that men and women are "the same". I want to point out the logical error of some unfounded conclusions.
2. I'm fully aware that the discussion is based on statistical averages. My degree is in mathematics and my career of choice is actuarial (statistical inference), so with the possible exception of Lothar, I understand this as well as anyone.

Okay, I'm going to try and make it as clear as I can. There is a very distinct difference between:

A. Making the statement, "Statistically, on average, women have lower success levels than men in the area math/science. Studies have attributed the causes for this difference to both environmental (social, psychological, cultural) and biological (natural, inherent intelligence) factors. It is unknown how much relative influence these factors have."

and

B. Making the statement, "Statistically, on average, women have lower success levels than men in the area math/science. Studies have attributed the causes for this difference to biological (natural, inherent intelligence) factors. Thus, the difference must be a solely a biological issue (i.e. the female brain must be weaker in this area)."

*Note the logical error (and omission) in B.*

That (B.) is the kind of thinking I'm objecting to. Summer's statement implied it, and the general sentiment in here seemed to support it; that's why I spoke up.

Lothar wrote:I don't subscribe to the idea that *all* women are less competent than *all* men at math, no. And I don't subscribe to the idea that *all* of the difference is inherent, or that *all* of it is environmental.

I do subscribe to at least the POSSIBILITY that women's brains, on average, are wired such that they have less mathematical ability, on average, than men. Maybe they're not -- but it's foolish to ignore the possibility that they are.
...
I'm not saying there's a 100% certain link that shows women have inherently less aptitude than men in the mathematical sciences. All I'm saying is, the possibility exists...

Agreed!

I really appreciate the clarification, since I originally got the impression (from your earlier posts) that you felt it was absolute proven fact.

I still gather that we don't agree on some aspects of this topic, including the motivation for the uproar at Harvard, but at least you've restored my faith in the common sense of the DBB.

When it comes to commedy I definitely think Men are funnier. Maybe its just that men make men laugh better, and comedy clubs are geared towards males, but few female commedians can make me laugh out loud.

Robin Willians
David Chapell
Jerry Seinfield
Drew Carry
Jeff Foxworthy
Bill Cosby
Eddie Murphy


I can't even think of female counterparts that come close. Can you? It could just be a social thing.

Foil wrote:My degree is in mathematics and my career of choice is actuarial (statistical inference), so with the possible exception of Lothar, I understand this as well as anyone.

Hey! You and Lothar aren't the only mathematicians on the DBB, you know! I even talked to you about your thesis in another thread! You must have intentionally excluded me from consideration out of subconscious gender bias! I demand that you apologize immediately!!!!!!

On a more serious note, I'm more concerned with the communal reaction than the actual merit of the research. There certainly are innate physical causes of the psychological differences between men and women, and asking whether those extend to aptitude for science is a reasonable question to ask. I don't know if it's true or not, or if the proposed research is entirely bogus or what, but I'm more than a little disturbed by the reaction.

Even among people who think there are no such natural differences, the correct and scholarly approach would be to evaluate the research seriously and carefully and discard it as bogus if it is, or modify the earlier held view if it is not. To yell and protest and demand apology for even asking the question is not the work of a scholar, but of a dogmatist.

In my view, the equality of men and women is a moral equality--equality before the law, equality in value as human beings, equality in rights before the state, equality in opportunity. It fundamentally derives from regaurding men and women as human beings equal in value and personhood. This view makes the most moral sense to me. The view that takes it further and states that men and women are equal in nature (their differences shaped only by society), that they are equivalent in ability, that any distinction between them is repression... this view strikes me as morally unnecessary and out of touch with reality.

I laugh to see such a thing happen in the secular world. I know it's only human nature, but it looks so very much like the way cults are formed that I can't help but laugh. People who mean well--who only mean to protect some historical doctrine, or respect the Bible--take some Bible verse about... oh, I don't know (trying not to offend any in present company)... a saint who was bitten by a snake and didn't die, and they found an entire movement on it, regularly handling snakes and seeing the survival of snakebites as a test of faith. Such an interpretation is completely unnecessary and out of touch with reality--and yet people defend it ruthlessly! This is like that too--taking a morally good understanding of equality and pressing it to morally questionable extremes, and then TOLERATING NO DISSENT IN THE NAME OF RIGHTEOUSNESS!

People like their morals simple, absolute, literal and unquestioned, I guess. And they often react in violent ways instead of scholarly ones when people try to question. That's why I said "secular fundamentalists." If you're so devoted to the doctrine of gender equality--and you take it so seriously that you have to explain away obvious differences between men and women--and you can't even listen to a question about a difference in nature, or seriously engage it... and if you feel you MUST get the statement retracted for the sake of equality, or society itself will revert to a place of patriarchal repression, completely unaware that a gentler moral definition of equality exists... then you're behaving precisely like a fundamentalist or a cult member.

That's not anything new. I guess it's just human nature to want moral things simple and secure. Life is easier that way: there are not so many tough moral dilemmas or tough times of self-examination, if you know what's absolutely right. But I do shudder that the disease has so infected academics. I knew already that not all scholars are academics, and not all academics are scholars. Nonetheless, there should be a good correlation, and it disturbs me to see a whole academic community behave like this.

Foil wrote:That (B.) is the kind of thinking I'm objecting to. Summer's statement implied it....

I wish I could find an actual quote of his statement. People have told me what it "implied" many times, but nobody has actually quoted him.

I saw the same sort of phenomenon during the presidential campaigns -- news reports would speak of some candidate making a statement that was "insensitive" or implied something offensive, when it was clear from the transcripts that the candidate meant something completely different than what was reported. If they were going to responsibly report on his speech, they should quote what he actually said and let the reader decide if it implies what they claim it does.

Nobody seems interested in actually quoting what Summers said. Instead, all I've seen are continued assertions about what he said -- people are saying that "what he said was sexist", but they won't tell me what he said so I can evaluate it on my own! The only thing I've been able to find is his response: "It's possible I made some reference to innate differences. . . . I did say that you have to be careful in attributing things to socialization. . . . That's what we would prefer to believe, but these are things that need to be studied." That sounds like neither (A) nor (B) -- it sounds like a third option:

(C) Statistically, on average, women have lower success levels than men in math/science. The seminar at which I'm speaking has concentrated on social/psychologial/cultural explanations, but we should also take into consideration the possible presence of biological/inherent factors.

If that's what he actually said, then the whole uproar is -- as Drakona said -- essentially "secular fundamentalism". If, on the other hand, he actually said something closer to (B) then the uproar was appropriate. My inclination was to assume he wasn't stupid enough to say something like (B), and everything I've read that includes any of his own words makes it sound like he said something closer to (C), but I could be wrong.

Roid, my woman and I have held contests with each other to see who could match a person's type the closest. We've been 90% successful with it. So far, all but 2 women (herself included) are F's, all the guys except 1 are T's.

(Asscombat is an F, imagine that.. )

Drakona wrote:

Foil wrote:My degree is in mathematics and my career of choice is actuarial (statistical inference), so with the possible exception of Lothar, I understand this as well as anyone.

Hey! You and Lothar aren't the only mathematicians on the DBB, you know! I even talked to you about your thesis in another thread! You must have intentionally excluded me from consideration out of subconscious gender bias! I demand that you apologize immediately!!!!!!

I'm sorry, I didn't purposefully mean to exclude you. I should have said "...as well as anyone involved in the discussion so far."
(I know you're being somewhat facetious, but I still think it deserves an apology...)

Drakona wrote:To yell and protest and demand apology for even asking the question is not the work of a scholar, but of a dogmatist.
...
The view that... states that men and women are equal in nature (their differences shaped only by society), that they are equivalent in ability, that any distinction between them is repression... this view strikes me as morally unnecessary and out of touch with reality.

Also agreed!

But I don't think that's the kind of reaction being shown by the faculty at Harvard. I think they're reacting to Summers' opposite inference that "their differences are shaped only by nature".

Lothar wrote:I wish I could find an actual quote of his statement. People have told me what it "implied" many times, but nobody has actually quoted him.

Well, according to the article in the Boston Globe:
"Summers spoke during a working lunch. He declined to provide a tape or transcript of his remarks...".

But he also (quoting from the article) "...said he was synthesizing the scholarship that the organizers had asked him to discuss, and that in his talk he repeated several times: 'I'm going to provoke you.'" and also said later "Research in behavioral genetics is showing that things people previously attributed to socialization weren't due to socialization after all."

To me, that sounds like he's leaning toward (B.) above, or just trying to elicit a reaction for some unknown reason.

I don't have much time at the moment to go into the reasons I think the academic reaction is justified, but despite the above opinions, I'm *not* blindly defending some outdated idea.

I'll be back on Monday... I hope to see some more good debate in here!

Drakona wrote:...and then TOLERATING NO DISSENT IN THE NAME OF RIGHTEOUSNESS!

Uh, oh... Dissent, I guess she doesn't want you around anymore...

Foil wrote:... in his talk he repeated several times: 'I'm going to provoke you.'" and also said later "Research in behavioral genetics is showing that things people previously attributed to socialization weren't due to socialization after all."

To me, that sounds like he's leaning toward (B.) above, or just trying to elicit a reaction for some unknown reason.

See, that doesn't read *at all* that way to me. It reads very much like (C) to me.

He said (knowingly) "I'm going to provoke you" and then he mentioned that there were a number of items on which people had identified social causes that were fake. It doesn't sound like he's saying "all social causes are fake" / "all differences are genetic", but rather, "you may have overestimated social causes" / "you have to take seriously the possibility that some causes are inherent."

This, I think, is why we need actual transcripts or full quotes. I mean... he said research has shown previously-determined "social" causes weren't social at all. I suppose he could be trying to imply that there are no social causes, but it sounds to me like he's just trying to imply people are too dogmatic in trying to make everything into a social cause and that they should be more careful. Without a complete transcript, we can't really be sure, but I'm still leaning toward him being in the (C) camp based on the way he's responded to the charges (as quoted in my last post.)

Testiculese wrote:Roid, my woman and I have held contests with each other to see who could match a person's type the closest. We've been 90% successful with it. So far, all but 2 women (herself included) are F's, all the guys except 1 are T's.

(Asscombat is an F, imagine that.. )

yeah, it's good (and fun) to be able to be well practiced in doing that. got any storys? i'd love to hear em

ACE hasn't told me what type he's tested as.
i'm an INFP (yes, an F), in australia 7 outof every 9 of INFPs are women.

interestingly, australian men have an even stronger statistical thinking bias than american men (79% vs 70%). but australian women have a statistically weaker feeling preference than american women (58% vs 70%). i've started doing some other comparisons between countrys like this and it's quite interesting seeing how they correspond to respective aspects of the cultural "vibes" that one country may have in the eyes of another.
eg: Australia is predominately Introverted, America is predominately Extroverted.

Foil wrote:
But I don't think that's the kind of reaction being shown by the faculty at Harvard. I think they're reacting to Summers' opposite inference that "their differences are shaped only by nature".

Lothar wrote:I wish I could find an actual quote of his statement. People have told me what it "implied" many times, but nobody has actually quoted him.

Well, according to the article in the Boston Globe:
"Summers spoke during a working lunch. He declined to provide a tape or transcript of his remarks...".

But he also (quoting from the article) "...said he was synthesizing the scholarship that the organizers had asked him to discuss, and that in his talk he repeated several times: 'I'm going to provoke you.'" and also said later "Research in behavioral genetics is showing that things people previously attributed to socialization weren't due to socialization after all."

To me, that sounds like he's leaning toward (B.) above, or just trying to elicit a reaction for some unknown reason.

That's it Foil. I think he was trying to challenge his people to have a good discussion covering all the bases. Educators (or the rest of us, for that matter) should be able to have a real discussion on this important subject without having to put up with unquestioned dogmatism from the right or the left.

As for you parents, go out and get your children (girls and boys) some science learning stuff already. The more the merrier, I say.

Foil wrote:

Drakona wrote:...and then TOLERATING NO DISSENT IN THE NAME OF RIGHTEOUSNESS!

Uh, oh... Dissent, I guess she doesn't want you around anymore...

OMG.....I'm crushed

With your permission, Drakona, I will take your quote out of context -

Dissent in the name of Righteousness !!!

Dedman: I don't really believe there's a 'glass ceiling'. Why? one word. Oprah.