Noelie
MIT Class of Pleistocene
SB degree in Computer Science and Engineering

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

"Andy Groves" <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:1106330664.430479.258790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

This is exactly what we see from
creationists, too. They will say
that the idea that the earth is only
6,000 years old is simply a legitimate
scientific hypothesis, supported
by many top-notch researchers, and
we're violating the spirit of free
inquiry by rejecting it. But it's not.
It's been considered and
rejected, and is an utterly ludicrous
idea. And if the president of my
university smugly spouted off
such garbage, I'd be outraged and
looking to see him fired too, as
someone patently incompetent to
lead a research university.

You make a false analogy. There are huge
amounts of data supporting that
there are innate differences between
men and women in the way we
think and process information.

Careful. We are talking specifically about innate differences in
science and math. If you can find a huge amount of data supporting this
in teh literature, then let's see it.

Note that I am not arguing for the contrary view. I am simply saying
that if you feel there is evidence to support your point, present it.

Unlike creationism, many respected scientists do
support this. Yes, some people have rejected
the possibility of innate
differences. These are the people who
are like creationists, because they
have done it for ideological rather
than scientific reasons. Consider this
critisicm of Helena Cronin, a scientist
who accepts that there are innate
differences between men and women:

"She's very naive. She doesn't seem aware of
the consequences of her ideas,
the way they are used by the right."

( See article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,268330,00.html )

Do you notice anything in this criticism
about evidence not backing the
hypothesis? No, Cronin's work is
rejected for its political consequences.
This is not science.

Jayne, I agree that there is evidence for differences between men and
women. I have not seen evidence to suggest that such differences extend
to innate differences in science and math.

Context matters. We consider hypotheses of
innate differences all the time in science;
that's very different from an administrator using
half-baked ideas to rationalize away cultural stereotypes and
prejudicial policies.

I see no reason to think that he was doing that.
From what I can make out
in the absence of a transcript, Summers
gave three possible factors as
causes for underrepresentation of women
in science. He said that the factor
of innate differences between men and
women had been neglected and needed
more research.

My point below is that he should take the plank out of his eye before
addressing the speck in his brother's.

It just seems to me that the fact that
women are subject to widespread,
long-term bias against their scientific
abilities, yet some still persevere and
manage to make it, is convincing evidence that the
"hypothesis" that they are innately inferior in these fields is
bogus. You can come back and tell me about "distribution curves"
and "long tails" when the playing field is level and you can
actually legitimately provide appropriate data."

Pinker has established credentials
as a scientist. As an expert in
evolutionary psychology, he is well
aware of what sort of research is going
on regarding innate differences. His
comment on this is:

"The hypothesis is that differences in
abilities might be one out of several
factors that explain differences in the
statistical representation of men
and women in various professions.
It does not mean that it is the only
factor. Still, if it is one factor, we
cannot reflexively assume that
different statistical representation
of men and women in science and
engineering is itself proof of discrimination."

I am not reflexively assuming that.

Or put another way: the possible influence of putative innate
differences between men and women at the far end of a population
distribution are dwarfed by the pervasive discrimination that women
encounter in the scientific profession.

How do we know that? What research has
established that women are
discriminated against? Is is a matter
of faith like God creating the world
in 6 days? If we are doing science,
we need evidence, not
assumptions.

Well, MIT did its report, which you discuss below. Note that no one is
disputing the data conclusions - that female scientists were paid less
than their male counterparts, that they had less lab space, and they
had to wait longer for promotion. In the light of that, Caltech - the
other premier science and technology college in the US - did its own
survey and came to similar conclusions. I can tell you from personal
experience that some of the women faculty were extremely sceptical
about taking part in the survey, but some of them were rather surprised
by the data when it was collated.

That's all the hard data I have. I can share anecdotal data from twenty
years as a scientist if you like. Between me and my acquaintances who
report similar things, we could provide anecdotes for most of the top
colleges in the US and Britain in the field of biology. And biology has
a much better representation of women than chemistry of physics.

But out of interest, if this is not enough for you, what sort of data
would convince you?

For Summers to focus on one and not the other seems myopic.

He was making the point that all the focus is on discrimination and
innate differences have been ignored.

And my point is that from my perspective as someone who is actually a
scientist, his perspective is totally skewed.

I think Summers would have been far
better received if he had suggested
minimizing that sort of discrimination
and then seeing if any innate
differences matter after that.

Summers would have been better received
if he were a woman. Men are not
allowed to say things that might upset women.

Your example of Helena Cronin would suggest otherwise. Or is she
actually a transvestite, real name Hank?

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

"Andy Groves" <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:1106330664.430479.258790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

[]

Our own PZ Maierz responded thusly on his little web diary:

" People weren't irate because Summers presented a tentative
hypothesis, but because Summers, an administrator with much clout

in

hiring and firing, presented a badly formed hypothesis with no

evidence

to support it, that contradicted what we know about the

of

biology, and he misrepresented it as the result of current,
"cutting-edge research."

Was PZ Maierz there? This description of Summers comments does not

match my

understanding of events.

Neither you nor Dr. Mayuuhz were there. You will have to each read
accounts of the meeting on the web and argue about it.

This is exactly what we see from
creationists, too. They will say that the idea that the earth is

only

6,000 years old is simply a legitimate scientific hypothesis,

supported

by many top-notch researchers, and we're violating the spirit of

free

inquiry by rejecting it. But it's not. It's been considered and
rejected, and is an utterly ludicrous idea. And if the president

my

university smugly spouted off such garbage, I'd be outraged and
looking to see him fired too, as someone patently incompetent to

lead a

research university.

You make a false analogy. There are huge amounts of data

that

there are innate differences between men and women in the way we

think and

process information.

Careful. We are talking specifically about innate differences in
science and math. If you can find a huge amount of data supporting

in teh literature, then let's see it.

Note that I am not arguing for the contrary view. I am simply saying
that if you feel there is evidence to support your point, present it.

Unlike creationism, many respected scientists do
support this. Yes, some people have rejected the possibility of

innate

differences. These are the people who are like creationists,

they

have done it for ideological rather than scientific reasons.

Consider this

critisicm of Helena Cronin, a scientist who accepts that there are

innate

differences between men and women:

"She's very naive. She doesn't seem aware of the consequences of

ideas,

the way they are used by the right."

( See article at:

)

Do you notice anything in this criticism about evidence not backing

the

hypothesis? No, Cronin's work is rejected for its political

consequences.

This is not science.

Jayne, I agree that there is evidence for differences between men and
women. I have not seen evidence to suggest that such differences

to innate differences in science and math.

Context matters. We consider hypotheses of innate differences all

the

time in science; that's very different from an administrator

half-baked ideas to rationalize away cultural stereotypes and
prejudicial policies.

I see no reason to think that he was doing that. From what I can

make out

in the absence of a transcript, Summers gave three possible factors

as

causes for underrepresentation of women in science. He said that

factor

of innate differences between men and women had been neglected and

needed

more research.

My point below is that he should take the plank out of his eye before
addressing the speck in his brother's.

It just seems to me that the fact that women are subject to

widespread,

long-term bias against their scientific abilities, yet some still
persevere and manage to make it, is convincing evidence that the
"hypothesis" that they are innately inferior in these fields is
bogus. You can come back and tell me about "distribution curves"
and "long tails" when the playing field is level and you can
actually legitimately provide appropriate data."

Pinker has established credentials as a scientist. As an expert in
evolutionary psychology, he is well aware of what sort of research

going

on regarding innate differences. His comment on this is:

"The hypothesis is that differences in abilities might be one out

several

factors that explain differences in the statistical representation

men

and women in various professions. It does not mean that it is the

only

factor. Still, if it is one factor, we cannot reflexively assume

different statistical representation of men and women in science

engineering is itself proof of discrimination."

I am not reflexively assuming that.

Or put another way: the possible influence of putative innate
differences between men and women at the far end of a population
distribution are dwarfed by the pervasive discrimination that

encounter in the scientific profession.

How do we know that? What research has established that women are
discriminated against? Is is a matter of faith like God creating

world

in 6 days? If we are doing science, we need evidence, not

assumptions.

Well, MIT did its report, which you discuss below. Note that no one

disputing the data conclusions - that female scientists were paid

than their male counterparts, that they had less lab space, and they
had to wait longer for promotion. In the light of that, Caltech -

other premier science and technology college in the US - did its own
survey and came to similar conclusions. I can tell you from personal
experience that some of the women faculty were extremely sceptical
about taking part in the survey, but some of them were rather

by the data when it was collated.

That's all the hard data I have. I can share anecdotal data from

years as a scientist if you like. Between me and my acquaintances who
report similar things, we could provide anecdotes for most of the top
colleges in the US and Britain in the field of biology. And biology

a much better representation of women than chemistry of physics.

But out of interest, if this is not enough for you, what sort of data
would convince you?

For Summers to focus on one and not the other seems myopic.

He was making the point that all the focus is on discrimination and

innate

differences have been ignored.

And my point is that from my perspective as someone who is actually a
scientist, his perspective is totally skewed.

I can see how this would have been
especially galling for Nancy Hopkins (one of the audience members

who

walked out), who spent a great deal of time and energy in the mid

90s

collating data that supported pervasive discrimination against

women

professors at MIT:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N15/15women.15n.html

Here is another take on this study:

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/mcelroy/012200.htm

<bq> With such impetus behind the drive to establish de facto

quotas

throughout education, few people are pausing to ask whether the

is

valid. Of course, the fact that Hopkins and MIT refuse to release

data,

which is said to contain 'confidential' information, hardly

encourages

inquiry. But the very composition of the Committee that produced

study

should raise serious questions. The Committee was established to

investigate

complaints of sex discrimination that were levelled by Hopkins

herself. Yet

she became the Chair, heading an investigation into her own

complaints. As a

result of her findings, Hopkins received -- among other benefits --

20

percent raise in salary, an endowed chair and increased research

funds.

Indeed, most of the Committee consisted of women who benefited

substantially

from the 'guilty' verdict. The only evidence of sex discrimination

produced

was the fact that there are more men than women in the faculty of

School

for Science <g>

Actually, that's wrong. The report looked at a great deal more than
that: salary, number of salary increases and their amount, amount of
lab space awarded on hiring, amount of lab space granted later after
hiring, time elapsing before promotion, and more that I can't recall.

In most cases a situation like this would be called a conflict of

interest.

But anyone calling Hopkins to account is accused of misogyny (if a

man) or

conservatism (if a woman.) Why can't we treat Hopkins the way we

would

treat a man in this situation and expect her to make public the

that

led to her deciding she needed a raise?

Did you consider that it is not up to Hopkins to release the data,

rather MIT? Perhaps the question should be directed at them. Note

that the report was sanctioned by MIT, with the full support of its
(male) dean, and that MIT accepted its conclusions.

I think Summers would have been far better received if he had

suggested

minimizing that sort of discrimination and then seeing if any

innate

differences matter after that.

Summers would have been better received if he were a woman. Men

not

allowed to say things that might upset women.

Your example of Helena Cronin would suggest otherwise. Or is she
actually a transvestite, real name Hank?

Andy