Essay On Summers Comments On Women In Science
Steven O.
speech where he speculated about the causes of the disparity in
professional achievements between men and women in
science/engineering. The speech provoked a firestorm of critical
comments, particularly in academia, but also in the general media.
I have written an essay in response to Summers' critics. The gist of
the essay is not to take a stand on Summers' hypotheses, but rather to
support and promote the free expression of ideas in general.
The essay can be found at
http://www.spyingonthecollegeofyourchoice.com/Essays.shtml
Fair Disclosure: The site is a partly commercial site which promotes
my book, Spying On The College Of Your Choice. However, the content
of the essay is "on topic" in terms of addressing the ethical issues
behind both Summers' speech and the response it received.
I would welcome feedback from readers. You can find my e-mail address
by poking around the Web site.
Steve O.
"Spying On The College Of Your Choice" -- How to pick the college that is the Best Match for a high school student's needs.
http://www.SpyingOnTheCollegeOfYourChoice.com
muha
people before. (This time, he touched on one of the ortodoxies of the
academic lefties and Harvard is full of them.) But he is a poor
politician and a presidency at a big uni is mostly politics with a bit
of administration. If he was just a prof, he would be free to say a
provocative stuff.
Repeating Rifle
greatest amount of controversy. Those that are obviously wrong get dismissed
out of hand. For example: "All women are incredibly stupid."
People also dismiss statements that are true, if they are believed to be
true. "The world is round." is not going attract as much today as it would
six centuries ago.
"Women are no good at math." is half true. Most men are no good at it
either, but that is another story.
My personal experience has been that average women do not take up their
hobbies or work as passionately as average men do. For example, very few
women get obsessed by computers even though many women do work with
computers. If they do, it is more likely to be with a use of computers, such
as chatting, rather than with the technology itself. This unwillingness to
be obsessive about such things is probably a good thing--but it is
different.
Bill
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In January of 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers delivered a
>speech where he speculated about the causes of the disparity in
>professional achievements between men and women in
>science/engineering. The speech provoked a firestorm of critical
>comments, particularly in academia, but also in the general media.
Yes, a significant step in the "advancement" of Western academic
intelligentsia towards, what was the phrase, the "ashheap of history".
>
>I have written an essay in response to Summers' critics. The gist of
>the essay is not to take a stand on Summers' hypotheses, but rather to
>support and promote the free expression of ideas in general.
>
>The essay can be found at
>http://www.spyingonthecollegeofyourchoice.com/Essays.shtml
I read it. Couldn't agree more, I give it two thumbs up. Bah, in case
you're following, you may be interested.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Uncle Al
>
> In article <m50g519526s5kgij1...@4ax.com>, Steven O. <nu...@null.com> writes:
> >In January of 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers delivered a
> >speech where he speculated about the causes of the disparity in
> >professional achievements between men and women in
> >science/engineering. The speech provoked a firestorm of critical
> >comments, particularly in academia, but also in the general media.
>
> Yes, a significant step in the "advancement" of Western academic
> intelligentsia towards, what was the phrase, the "ashheap of history".
> >
> >I have written an essay in response to Summers' critics. The gist of
> >the essay is not to take a stand on Summers' hypotheses, but rather to
> >support and promote the free expression of ideas in general.
> >
> >The essay can be found at
> >http://www.spyingonthecollegeofyourchoice.com/Essays.shtml
>
> I read it. Couldn't agree more, I give it two thumbs up. Bah, in case
> you're following, you may be interested.
http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html
Given finite resources, should you invest them in improving the small
number of best candidates who will vie for a smaller number of top
postions? Or should you invest those finite resources in a much
larger number of second rate candidates to compete for those same few
positions, and simultaneously overtly screw the intrinsically
qualified cohort?
Really hot lamproite or kimberlite diamond ore is a mere 1 ppm wt-%
diamond (5 carats/tonne will make you astoundingly wealthy). Cornell
University backs onto a kimberlite dike! Follow the service road from
the Snee Hall parking area to its intersection with College Ave. The
kimberlite dike crosses Cascadilla gorge just upstream from the
College Ave. bridge. It cuts through the Devonian siltstones beneath
Snee Hall. Look just upstream from an abandoned flight of stairs that
led from College Town to the creek. Diamonds strongly bond to grease
boards. It is not overmuch difficult to pan for them.
Oops! Cornell kimberlite is not diamondiferous. How much money will
you spend mining Cornell kibmerlite before you find diamonds?
Dumping literal annual tens of $billions into unqualifed women,
Blacks, Browns, Reds, queers, morons, and every other *privileged*
disadvantaged group in the expectation of them performing like
out-of-the-box qualified people is utter madness. How much money will
you spend mining Cornell kimberlite before you find diamonds?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>> In article <m50g519526s5kgij1...@4ax.com>, Steven O. <nu...@null.com> writes:
>> >In January of 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers delivered a
>> >speech where he speculated about the causes of the disparity in
>> >professional achievements between men and women in
>> >science/engineering. The speech provoked a firestorm of critical
>> >comments, particularly in academia, but also in the general media.
>>
>> Yes, a significant step in the "advancement" of Western academic
>> intelligentsia towards, what was the phrase, the "ashheap of history".
>> >
>> >I have written an essay in response to Summers' critics. The gist of
>> >the essay is not to take a stand on Summers' hypotheses, but rather to
>> >support and promote the free expression of ideas in general.
>> >
>> >The essay can be found at
>> >http://www.spyingonthecollegeofyourchoice.com/Essays.shtml
>>
>> I read it. Couldn't agree more, I give it two thumbs up. Bah, in case
>> you're following, you may be interested.
>
>http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html
>
>Given finite resources, should you invest them in improving the small
>number of best candidates who will vie for a smaller number of top
>postions? Or should you invest those finite resources in a much
>larger number of second rate candidates to compete for those same few
>positions, and simultaneously overtly screw the intrinsically
>qualified cohort?
>
so not in. And it is all just a social construct anyway. We'll
declare the second raters to be first raters, and once we'll do so,
they'll become so:-)
"I can't give you a brain, but I'll give you a diploma" (from the
Wizard 0f Oz).
GR_GR
What is interesting is that if you counter a stupid generalization with
another, arguments can get really heated.
So when it comes to seeing stupid generalization about woman, simply
counter with equally stupid generalization of men, and vice verse.
The whole point of the OP's point was to troll and cause strife, not to
further the feminist agenda.
As a troll it was a beauty!
![Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjURN6b50hrZp1VmOKY6vUoD4xke_qxfdpwlGhkd6mvzimVI=s40-c)
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
>>I read it. Couldn't agree more, I give it two thumbs up. Bah, in
case
you're following, you may be interested. <<
I give it two thumbs up also, being as how it makes the daring and
breathless assertion that academia should have as priority the search
for truth (for its own sake-- gasp) and political considerations be
damned.
Why, this kind of thing is almost *Emersonian* in its credo. By which I
mean it'll be a long before YOU are invited back to Harvard to speak.
And forget about getting to be president there.
If you keep going down this road, you'll eventually get to Voltaire and
then Spinoza, and finally even Socrates. And then down the rabbit hole.
So stop now, before you succeed in becoming a true autodidact, and
eventually start to need glasses. And finally come to believe that our
modern educational institutions are full of pompous fools who got where
they are by performing an act which requires less brains than
chapstick.
SBH
Karl Uppiano
talk about this stuff, especially in universities. They're supposed to be
looking for the truth, not spouting dogma.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
You're in trouble already, young man. Mandatory women's studies and
sensitivity training for you, followed by expulsion.
Jim Logajan
> "Karl Uppiano" wrote:
>> I'll take scholarship over indoctrination any day.
Summers wasn't engaging in scholarship. He was speculating, off the cuff,
at best. That is more akin to what people people do at a bar, over a
beer.
>> People should be able to talk about this stuff, especially in
>> universities. They're supposed to be looking for the truth, not
>> spouting dogma.
That men are superior to women was, and many cases still is, the most
accepted dogma. Summers wasn't stating some truth, he was the one who
attempted to use a handful of questionable observations which ended up
reiterating dogma that is thousands of years old.
Last I looked, no matriarchies (oppressive to men or otherwise) have
formed in the tiny handful of years that women have had the vote and the
right to birth control, so all this angst to "protect" Summers from his
shoddy "scholarship" seems sadly misplaced.
Sure, people should be able to talk about unpleasant things. And it is
only right and proper that people should be able to get angry about
questionable "truths" that have been used in the past as rationale to
curb their rights.
> You're in trouble already, young man. Mandatory women's studies and
> sensitivity training for you, followed by expulsion.
Your sarcasm is misplaced. Summers' took a piece of statistical
information (the comparative width of scores from "standardized" IQ tests
between genders) and ran too far with it. Considering the mountain of
evidence showing that the legacy of patriarchal dominance (feel free to
contest that history - it'd be amusing) lingers on, to claim it was no
longer a factor worth considering in his analysis really showed Summers
to be, at best, naive. It certainly wasn't very "academic".
The use of IQ curves to demonstrate anything is misguided, since I seem
to recall that among other failings, they need to be renormalized every
few years (indicating they aren't quite measuring intrinsic ability) and
external factors _do_ change the curves:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/95/950802Arc5122.html
http://www.skeptic.com/04.3.siano-bellcurve.html
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> "Karl Uppiano" wrote:
>>> I'll take scholarship over indoctrination any day.
>
>Summers wasn't engaging in scholarship. He was speculating, off the cuff,
>at best. That is more akin to what people people do at a bar, over a
>beer.
>
"speculations" were based on existing observations.
>>> People should be able to talk about this stuff, especially in
>>> universities. They're supposed to be looking for the truth, not
>>> spouting dogma.
>
>That men are superior to women was, and many cases still is, the most
>accepted dogma. Summers wasn't stating some truth, he was the one who
>attempted to use a handful of questionable observations
There is little questionable about the observations that the standard
deviations for the distributions of various cognitive abilieties
(probably not only cognitive) are a tad larger for men than for women.
> which ended up reiterating dogma that is thousands of years old.
>
Straight from a PC manual, this one.
>Last I looked, no matriarchies (oppressive to men or otherwise) have
>formed in the tiny handful of years that women have had the vote and the
>right to birth control, so all this angst to "protect" Summers from his
>shoddy "scholarship" seems sadly misplaced.
>
>Sure, people should be able to talk about unpleasant things. And it is
>only right and proper that people should be able to get angry about
>questionable "truths" that have been used in the past as rationale to
>curb their rights.
>
>> You're in trouble already, young man. Mandatory women's studies and
>> sensitivity training for you, followed by expulsion.
>
>Your sarcasm is misplaced. Summers' took a piece of statistical
>information (the comparative width of scores from "standardized" IQ tests
>between genders) and ran too far with it.
Too far? He pointed that such difference amounts to a lot when you
get to, say, 4 standard deviations away from center. Takes an idiot
to say that a statement to this effect is "too far".
> Considering the mountain of
>evidence showing that the legacy of patriarchal dominance (feel free to
>contest that history - it'd be amusing) lingers on, to claim it was no
>longer a factor worth considering in his analysis
But he didn't say anything like this. He did say, in fact, that
social and cultural factors may have influence and even open bias may
exist. Only, he added that there may be intrinsic factors, as well.
So now you crossed the boundary from spewing PC gibberish to plain
lying. Which is about what could've been expected.
jmfb...@aol.com
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <m50g519526s5kgij1...@4ax.com>, Steven O.
<nu...@null.com> writes:
>>In January of 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers delivered a
>>speech where he speculated about the causes of the disparity in
>>professional achievements between men and women in
>>science/engineering. The speech provoked a firestorm of critical
>>comments, particularly in academia, but also in the general media.
>
>Yes, a significant step in the "advancement" of Western academic
>intelligentsia towards, what was the phrase, the "ashheap of history".
Yep. Another mess to take care of.
>>
>>I have written an essay in response to Summers' critics. The gist of
>>the essay is not to take a stand on Summers' hypotheses, but rather to
>>support and promote the free expression of ideas in general.
>>
>>The essay can be found at
>>http://www.spyingonthecollegeofyourchoice.com/Essays.shtml
>
>I read it. Couldn't agree more, I give it two thumbs up. Bah, in case
>you're following, you may be interested.
Okay. I'll take a hike to the library.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
jmfb...@aol.com
Repeating Rifle <salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
>My personal experience has been that average women do not take up their
>hobbies or work as passionately as average men do. For example, very few
>women get obsessed by computers even though many women do work with
>computers. If they do, it is more likely to be
>with a use of computers, such
>as chatting, rather than with the technology itself.
Sigh! You do need to get out more. Who do you think did the
work so can play with the toys you have today?
<snip>
Robert Vienneau
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <Xns96344409443...@216.168.3.30>, Jim Logajan
> <Jam...@Lugoj.com> writes:
> >"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> "Karl Uppiano" wrote:
> >>> I'll take scholarship over indoctrination any day.
> >Summers wasn't engaging in scholarship. He was speculating, off the
> >cuff,
> >at best. That is more akin to what people people do at a bar, over a
> >beer.
> First, he said explicitly that he's going to speculate. Second, his
> "speculations" were based on existing observations.
Summers did not seem to want to bother familiarizing himself with the
scholarship on his topic, as any academic should before talking to
the experts in the field. He has a history of arrogance, and that has
something to do with the reaction of the Harvard faculty.
Summers was not engaging in scholarship. He is not an academic. He
is an administrator. He was making ill-informed comments to justify
Harvard's failings.
> >>> People should be able to talk about this stuff, especially in
> >>> universities. They're supposed to be looking for the truth, not
> >>> spouting dogma.
> >That men are superior to women was, and many cases still is, the most
> >accepted dogma. Summers wasn't stating some truth, he was the one who
> >attempted to use a handful of questionable observations
> There is little questionable about the observations that the standard
> deviations for the distributions of various cognitive abilieties
> (probably not only cognitive) are a tad larger for men than for women.
Which has nothing to with nature versus nurture debates, or what is
intrinsic and what is socialization.
> > which ended up reiterating dogma that is thousands of years old.
> Straight from a PC manual, this one.
The above is not rational argument. No rational reason has been
given to reject the statement that Summers was "reiterating dogma
that is thousands of years old."
> >Last I looked, no matriarchies (oppressive to men or otherwise) have
> >formed in the tiny handful of years that women have had the vote and the
> >right to birth control, so all this angst to "protect" Summers from his
> >shoddy "scholarship" seems sadly misplaced.
> >
> >Sure, people should be able to talk about unpleasant things. And it is
> >only right and proper that people should be able to get angry about
> >questionable "truths" that have been used in the past as rationale to
> >curb their rights.
> >> You're in trouble already, young man. Mandatory women's studies and
> >> sensitivity training for you, followed by expulsion.
> >Your sarcasm is misplaced. Summers' took a piece of statistical
> >information (the comparative width of scores from "standardized" IQ
> >tests
> >between genders) and ran too far with it.
> Too far? He pointed that such difference amounts to a lot when you
> get to, say, 4 standard deviations away from center. Takes an idiot
> to say that a statement to this effect is "too far".
Which has nothing to with nature versus nurture debates.
> > Considering the mountain of
> >evidence showing that the legacy of patriarchal dominance (feel free to
> >contest that history - it'd be amusing) lingers on, to claim it was no
> >longer a factor worth considering in his analysis
> But he didn't say anything like this. He did say, in fact, that
> social and cultural factors may have influence and even open bias may
> exist. Only, he added that there may be intrinsic factors, as well.
> So now you crossed the boundary from spewing PC gibberish to plain
> lying. Which is about what could've been expected.
The above is stupid. We have no reason to know that any
misrepresentation is deliberate.
Summers ranked the factors. He did not merely "add... that there may
be intrinsic factors, as well." Is Mati lying by omission?
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
Robert Vienneau
> People also dismiss statements that are true, if they are believed to be
> true. "The world is round." is not going attract as much today as it
> would
> six centuries ago.
As far as I am concerned, the statements on this thread in support
of Summers have been about as well-informed as the above.
Educated European opinion six centuries ago was that the earth is
round.
Robert Kolker
>
> Summers wasn't engaging in scholarship. He was speculating, off the cuff,
> at best. That is more akin to what people people do at a bar, over a
> beer.
Some types of scholarship ARE speculations! Working out a new theory or
approach is a speculation because success is not guaranteed. What you
are complaining about is the Summers' speculation was not rigorous
enough for you, are worked out well enough in the detail.
A proper study of the matter should reveal whether there are intrinsic
differences in the way females think as compared to males and if there
are such differences what are they.
The lack of female theoretricians in physics and mathematics (say) could
be explained in sociological or psychological terms or -maybe-, just
-maybe- there is a genetic factor (gasp!). Of course the Liberals will
greet such a finding with the same hostility that greeted -The Bell
Curve-. There are certain quesiton which Should Never Be Raise,
according to some kinds of Liberal thinking.
From a practical point of view, Summers should have thought the matter
out and worked up his position in such a way that it could be defended
logically and perhaps with relevent work in genetics, sociology and
psychology, further backed up with statistics. The Liberals would still
go boo! hiss! but with appropriate backup they simply could not dismiss
the position out of hand.
I give Summers an A for raising a reasonable question and a D for
picking the wrong venue to raise it.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
> But he didn't say anything like this. He did say, in fact, that
> social and cultural factors may have influence and even open bias may
> exist. Only, he added that there may be intrinsic factors, as well.
> So now you crossed the boundary from spewing PC gibberish to plain
> lying. Which is about what could've been expected.
The fact that Summers allowed even for the -possibility- of intrinsic
genetic differences in the way femaies think as compared to males is the
Harvard equivalent to yelling Nigger, Nigger out loud. The authors of
-The Bell Curve- met the same kind of reaction.
Bob Kolker
jmfb...@aol.com
Robert Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>> Summers wasn't engaging in scholarship. He was speculating, off the
cuff,
>> at best. That is more akin to what people people do at a bar, over a
>> beer.
>
>Some types of scholarship ARE speculations! Working out a new theory or
>approach is a speculation because success is not guaranteed. What you
>are complaining about is the Summers' speculation was not rigorous
>enough for you, are worked out well enough in the detail.
>
>A proper study of the matter should reveal whether there are intrinsic
>differences in the way females think as compared to males and if there
>are such differences what are they.
Wonderful. Let us waste yet more money on proving there are
differences between men and women. Even preschoolers know this
is a fact. How about putting that money into paying for the
outrageous prices of getting through grad school. Oh, GASP!!
There I go again..combining common sense and financing in the
same breath.
>
>The lack of female theoretricians in physics and mathematics (say) could
>be explained in sociological or psychological terms or -maybe-, just
>-maybe- there is a genetic factor (gasp!).
Or, perhaps, the premise is a myth. I don't know what the guy
used for his data. If it's these idiotic entranace exams, one
should note that the final scores are not a good metric anymore.
My nephew has taken these tests at least three times and will
choose which score gets sent to colleges.
> .. Of course the Liberals will
>greet such a finding with the same hostility that greeted -The Bell
>Curve-. There are certain quesiton which Should Never Be Raise,
>according to some kinds of Liberal thinking.
The Liberals love this kind of smoke and mirrors. It helps to
ensure a dumbing down of the public. One should note which
state Harvard occupies. This state is in the throes of trying
to measure teaching and learning based on performance rather
than birthing circumstances.
>
> From a practical point of view, Summers should have thought the matter
>out and worked up his position in such a way that it could be defended
>logically and perhaps with relevent work in genetics, sociology and
>psychology, further backed up with statistics. The Liberals would still
>go boo! hiss! but with appropriate backup they simply could not dismiss
>the position out of hand.
>
>I give Summers an A for raising a reasonable question and a D for
>picking the wrong venue to raise it.
I give him an E for including a gender bias in the real question
which should have been about why Americans aren't choosing
science and math. The current ads by one of the teachers'
unions is bitching about how they have to teach math and
English instead of art.
/BAH
Chan-Ho Suh
> hobbies or work as passionately as average men do. For example, very few
> women get obsessed by computers even though many women do work with
> computers. If they do, it is more likely to be with a use of computers, such
> as chatting, rather than with the technology itself. This unwillingness to
> be obsessive about such things is probably a good thing--but it is
> different.
>
My personal belief, filtered through my plethora of biases, has been
that average men do not take up their their hobbies or work as
passionately as average women do. Let me give an example so I don't
seem like a dickhead. Very few men have an obsession for poetry or
other literary artforms even though many men do work with words. (This
is a clear observation, free from any slant by me of course.) If they
do, it is more likely to be with a use of words, such as filling out
forms or loudly asserting macho statements, rather than any art. This
unwillingness to be obsessive about such things (and general lack of
imagination) is probably a good thing, (after all, someone has to fill
out all those damn forms), but it is obviously different from being
truly creative and intelligent.
Virgil
Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
> "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > "Karl Uppiano" wrote:
> >> I'll take scholarship over indoctrination any day.
>
> Summers wasn't engaging in scholarship. He was speculating, off the cuff,
> at best. That is more akin to what people people do at a bar, over a
> beer.
>
> >> People should be able to talk about this stuff, especially in
> >> universities. They're supposed to be looking for the truth, not
> >> spouting dogma.
>
> That men are superior to women was, and many cases still is, the most
> accepted dogma. Summers wasn't stating some truth, he was the one who
> attempted to use a handful of questionable observations which ended up
> reiterating dogma that is thousands of years old.
But Summers didn't say anything like that. What he said was that men
appear to be statistically more variable than women in almost every
measurable characteristic. This means that while men may have more of
the extremely bright they also have more of the extrememly dim.
It is those extremely dim at statistics who have misrepresented what was
actually said and raised this whole foofah.
Virgil
> The lack of female theoretricians in physics and mathematics (say) could
> be explained in sociological or psychological terms or -maybe-, just
> -maybe- there is a genetic factor (gasp!).
It could also be explained by variance for women in measures of the
relevant talents being smaller than the corresponding variance for men.
This could be the case even if it should transpire that women have on
average better measurements than men, since it is only in the extreme
upper tails of these distributions that one expects extreme talents to
exist.
Those who do not understand the difference between means and variances
should not pontificate on what they mean.
Uncle Al
Mandatory Wymyn's studies, then sensitivity/diversity training, then
*Anger Management,* then expulsion - with ignominy! You don't receive
the bullet to the base of your skull until you satisfactorily finish
your re-education.
"Assessment of Detention and Corrections Operations in Iraq." If
Uncle Al were in charge of Abu Ghraib prison we'd start with
testosterone antimetabolites and estrogen in the low-protein
high-starch food. When the prisoners are weepy-teepy and emasculated
we add a major tranqulizer like Thorazine or have some real proximate
fun with droperidol and the like. Strap 'em down in the dark and add
a fat dollop of DMT plus eight hours of Enya for behaviorial
reorientation. Give Uncle Al 90 days and he'll transform stiff-dicked
stinking 20-year old Arab terrorists into lavender-scented
kaffe-klatching girlies. Think of it as feminism with a PERT chart.
MK-ULTRA was bush league. You cannot take out. You must replace -
biologically as well as psychologically. Damnation and redemption,
then rebirth.
Mark Thorson
> If Uncle Al were in charge of Abu Ghraib prison we'd start
> with testosterone antimetabolites and estrogen in the
> low-protein high-starch food. When the prisoners are
> weepy-teepy and emasculated we add a major tranqulizer
> like Thorazine or have some real proximate fun with
> droperidol and the like. Strap 'em down in the dark and
> add a fat dollop of DMT plus eight hours of Enya for
> behaviorial reorientation.
Don't forget the domoic acid so that they don't . . . don't . . .
whatever it is you use domoic acid for. :-)
Uncle Al
Academia properly yells "KIKE! KIKE!" Diversity admissions are inert
material. If you let in Jews they will take over within your own
rules, euchering out those who deserve to thrive given their pater
familia social connections. It was an Ivy League disaster in the
1950s and 1960s. 3% of the American population embraced everything
that was profitable and powerful.
Asians are the new 3% intellectual threat, but the immigrant F1 norm
raised on traditional low-protein high-soya diets was physically
nonthreatening (including sexually diminished males). The F2
generation raised on beef, chicken, and heavily supplimented with
nutrients is six-foot with normal genitalia. They stare back.
Uncle Al
A little sloppy but definitely in the smorgasbord,
http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pim670.htm
If you want to play that kind of game, then enjoy ciguatoxin. The
idea of interrogation is to disgorge information. Physical damage
levied upon the subject is evidence of a low competency interrogator.
Physical mutilation has other goals - most of them unachieved in the
real world.
What does severing fingers get you? It gets you a permanently
motivated enemy. Vietnamese emigrated to the US and were accepted.
Hanoi Jane is still reviled, and rightfully so. There are better,
more useful, more profitable modalities to target in the opposition.
Look at imprisoned Northern Irish. They had hunger strikes to the
death and painted the walls with their feces. So? That is how they
lived on the outside, too. If the British had any brains they would
not have pounded on the armor, they would have pried at the cracks.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
which should have been about why Americans aren't choosing
science and math. The current ads by one of the teachers'
unions is bitching about how they have to teach math and
English instead of art.<<
COMMENT:
Oh, that's a good question, but I think the answer's sort of obvious.
Any political sphere will eventually be taken over by politicians. By
"political sphere" I mean one in which power is derived
verbally/socially, by means of who you can convince or coerce, or how
loud you can wail, how well you kiss ass, or how good your debating
skillls are. As opposed to other spheres in life, where power comes
from how well you can bust heads, manipulate a machine, manipulate raw
nature, etc. Neither machines or nature being particularly susceptable
to threats or verbal skills (although mankind has a long long history
of thinking otherwise-- see magic, shamanism, religion both "primitive"
and not, etc, etc. The rise of technology in just the last half
millennium is due partly to a VERY late post rennaisance recognition
that "magical" or verbal attempts to control nature are worth shit).
There are famously few engineers and physicists in congress. Do we need
some huge academic study to figure out why? Should we hear from the
president of Harvard on the question? But the question of why there's
so little love of the physical sciences in modern academia and
teacher's unions, is merely the flip side of this, and has the same
underlying mechanism. These are simply not the same kinds of people,
that's all.
People differ in how they look to control the world, in order to get
power (which is the goal of all human existance, since it leads to
reproductive success). (1) There are people whose approach to the world
is to get power by means of rhetoric (these days, "giving the
disenfranchised a 'voice'-- see pure whining). This is essentially an
infantile approach, since all humans start out in this mode. Some never
leave, though, and we call these "progressives." (2) There are other
people whose approach to the world is by means of theft, or bonking
somebody on the head (these people perpetually wear helmets--- see BD
in Doonsbury). These are conservatives and violent criminals (hard to
tell apart sometimes). (3) there are merchants and salesmen and
huckters whose first instinct is to buy or trade for it, and finally
(4) there are people whose approach is to take it apart, see how it
works, build a device to get what you want. Math and the natural
sciences are obviously here. [There's some math in business and
wheeling and dealing also; business requires both sorts of skill sets].
The nonverbal math-and-mechanics oriented people flee the verbal wars
of academia and politics as fast as they can, normally. They have been
kept in academics historically only because of academia's domination by
men (who, with the exception of a few natural dramatic actors, I think
tend toward the last three categories of power-grabbing). Now that the
era of male domination in academia is ending, with only the whiners
left, the engineers and businessmen are simply going to be found
elsewhere, Because they simply cannot stand the rules of the odious
power structure that results in any place when politicians completely
take over.
So where are the math geeks to be found? Usually running their own
companies and thanking god they're out of academia.
SBH
Mark Thorson
> A little sloppy but definitely in the smorgasbord,
>
> http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pim670.htm
Try searching on "Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning".
> If you want to play that kind of game, then enjoy ciguatoxin.
> The idea of interrogation is to disgorge information.
Yes, but covering your tracks is also important.
I rather like the idea of performing the interrogation,
implanting an RFID chip, then sending the guy back
home. Maybe get him really drunk first, so there's
a logical explanation for his memory lapse. Nobody
needs to know he was captured and interrogated.
Domoic acid is a little less sloppy when combined
with kynurenic acid.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2101746
Some finesse (and a watchful eye on the EEG)
may be required to achieve optimal results
without leaving footprints observable on MRI
or at autopsy.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
which should have been about why Americans aren't choosing
science and math.<<
The subset of this question was also addressed by him and I give him an
E for missing what I think is one part of the big picture. For those
people who do chose the sciences, why are the women to be found almost
exclusively in the life sciences, and those that deal with human
beings?
Here's my take on it. This has nothing to do with math skills at all,
except in a derivative way. There is less math in the life sciences
BECAUSE of the sorts of people who go into the life sciences, not the
other way around. In other words, women don't avoid physics because
it's so math-intensive. Rather physics is so math-intensive as a
science because the people it interests tend to be the sort of people
who are very very good at math. And these people in turn are often
uninterested in doing statistics and the kinds of math things that
biologists and economists do. Until they reach their 40's, if ever. So
such people tend to study subatomic particles instead of insects or
viruses. Quarks instead of jaguars, if you will.
Because of this, we get this stuff about how it somehow intrinsically
*takes* more math to study particles than dolphins. As though there
were some parts of nature intrinsically more mathematical than others,
LOL. Sorry, I'm not buying.. If you have the math skills, you can find
a way to apply them to any science you happen to be interested in. If
anything, biology is messier and more difficult to pare down to
something you can analyze with a mathematical model. But there's no *a
priori* reason at all why the mathematical models themselves should be
any less complex in the life sciences than they are in the "hard"
sciences. The fact that they *are* is a historical result of who was
interested in what. Yes, the math in "acceptable research topics" in
physics, is harder. But that is NOT because physics is INHERENTLY more
mathematical than (say) physiology. Rather, mathematical applications
have been furthest advanced in physics because those very few highly
skilled young mathematicians tended to be male. And not interested in
the life sciences at that stage in their career. Women if they are
interested in science, are often interested in life sciences from the
get-go.
Interest can change for individual scientists, of course. One thinks of
the careers of Schroedinger, Delbruck, Szilard, Feynman, Pauling, etc,
etc. At some point all of them looked up from their commutator brackets
and heard the songbirds. At that point, they merely felt the way the
average woman feels all the time. Before that, they were in a kind of
high-testosterone shoot em up fugue-state that it really takes a Galois
to understand. I don't think the academic politically-correct
squat-to-piss types at Harvard will EVER get it. Fortunately, the
progress of science (mostly) doesn't depend on it.
The real battle is over money and power, of course. The big Harvard
debates wouldn't care of fewer women went into the "hard" sciences, if
there wasn't some kind of odd public perception that the "soft"
sciences are somehow less important to progress, or that even the less
mathematical parts of physics (ie, experimental physics and applied
technology) were somehow less important than pure theory. They aren't.
All are equally necessary for progress. The fact is that women have
been working in the sciences since as long as the sciences have been
around. But they've been doing the parts of the labor which haven't
gotten the recognition.
Just about anybody of average intelligence can eventually be trained to
do algebra, simple calculus, or statistics. Most progress in science
comes from hard work, curiosity, self-questioning, and relentless
honesty. Much of it can be done by people who can't divide 60 by 5, if
they have access to somebody (or something) that can. The ability to do
the very highest sort of math is a rather Martian trait, like the
ability to play a peice of music by ear on some instrument, after
hearing it just once. Those people who have this kind of talent are
rare, always young, usually male, and often somewhat odd. Left to
themselves, they often do not drift into all areas of the sciences
equally. So what? But they can usually be persuaded to work in them, as
part of a team. As for the rest of science, men and women generally
compete on a more or less equal footing so far as basic skills, and if
they happen to have different interests in the kinds of science they
happen to want to work in, so what? It's only our job as a society to
make sure that we don't tend to undervalue the various scientific
fields that women prefer, BECAUSE women tend to prefer them. Other than
that, let the chips fall where they may.
SBH
Jim Logajan
> Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> writes:
>>That men are superior to women was, and many cases still is, the most
>>accepted dogma. Summers wasn't stating some truth, he was the one who
>>attempted to use a handful of questionable observations
>
> There is little questionable about the observations that the standard
> deviations for the distributions of various cognitive abilieties
> (probably not only cognitive) are a tad larger for men than for women.
Then how do you account for the results of the Stanford study, which was
referenced in one of the URLs I included but that you elected to elide?
>> which ended up reiterating dogma that is thousands of years old.
>>
> Straight from a PC manual, this one.
Which part are you contesting? The statement that the dogma is thousands of
years old, that it was a reiteration of that dogma, or both?
I know of at least two major world religions that are centuries old which
promote the subordination of women to men - and they are still quite active
in the U.S. So I presume I irritated you only with the "reiteration" part?
It is pointless, devisive, and is irrelevant to the argument so, if
possible, please consider that part retracted.
>>Your sarcasm is misplaced. Summers' took a piece of statistical
>>information (the comparative width of scores from "standardized" IQ
>>tests between genders) and ran too far with it.
>
> Too far? He pointed that such difference amounts to a lot when you
> get to, say, 4 standard deviations away from center. Takes an idiot
> to say that a statement to this effect is "too far".
First, I haven't used any personal insults, so if you can refrain from them
I'd appreciate it. Feel free to humiliate me with facts - I can deal with
that. Secondly, Summers himself says "Now, it's pointed out by one of the
papers at this conference that these tests are not a very good measure and
are not highly predictive with respect to people's ability to do that. And
that's absolutely right." And in spite of saying that it is _absolutely
right_ that the tests aren't highly predictive, he continues on that track
anyway! Hence my "running too far" assessment.
>> Considering the mountain of
>>evidence showing that the legacy of patriarchal dominance (feel free
>>to contest that history - it'd be amusing) lingers on, to claim it was
>>no longer a factor worth considering in his analysis
>
> But he didn't say anything like this. He did say, in fact, that
> social and cultural factors may have influence and even open bias may
> exist. Only, he added that there may be intrinsic factors, as well.
The order of importance and the emphasis of his points are pretty explicit,
and "intrinsic factors" weren't "added" - they were what he considered most
important. He explicitly listed the factors in order of importance, and
intrinsic motivation and intrinsic ability both top social factors in his
analysis:
"One is what I would call the - I'll explain each of these in a few moments
and comment on how important I think they are - the first is what I call
the high-powered job hypothesis.
The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the
high end,
and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of
discrimination in a search.
And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order
that I just described."
The paragraph beginning "The most controversial in a way, question,"
addresses the third factor, and the bulk of it looks to me to be an attack
on it as a factor. I think his argument might have had validity if the pool
of applicants to colleges was already uniform and unaffected by social
factors encountered during grade school and college, but such is not the
case (https://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/rest_86_2_447_0.pdf).
Sadly, by the time students reach college it appears that the damage is
probably done and there is nothing he can do as an administrator to improve
the situation. Social and cultural factors don't suddenly kick in at
college freshman year after all.
> So now you crossed the boundary from spewing PC gibberish to plain
> lying. Which is about what could've been expected.
I've never posted on this subject before, nor have I personally attacked
you, so I don't understand what this "which is about what could've been
expected" personal attack is referencing. And I have tried my best to
explain why I believed his remarks were essentially dismissive of the
social and cultural factors.
Jim Logajan
> Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
>> That men are superior to women was, and many cases still is, the most
>> accepted dogma. Summers wasn't stating some truth, he was the one who
>> attempted to use a handful of questionable observations which ended
>> up reiterating dogma that is thousands of years old.
>
> But Summers didn't say anything like that. What he said was that men
> appear to be statistically more variable than women in almost every
> measurable characteristic. This means that while men may have more of
> the extremely bright they also have more of the extrememly dim.
>
> It is those extremely dim at statistics who have misrepresented what
> was actually said and raised this whole foofah.
Ahem. Summers listed three factors, in order of alleged importance (my
paraphrasing, obviously):
1) Motivation - intrinsic or socially impressed.
2) Intrinsic ability.
3) Social influences.
The first two have been used for centuries to rationalize limiting the
rights of women - hence the bitter attacks against him. The fact that his
argument was modestly novel doesn't erase the priority he assigned to the
factor, nor its checkered history. Because of its use in the abuse of human
rights, use of "intrinsic ability" and its variants seem, IMHO, to deserve
careful scrutiny.
If you remove entirely the "IQ standard deviation width" argument from his
remarks (which even he acknowledged was probably ill-founded, yet he plows
ahead anyway) you still have him invoking point 1 - and signalling that he
sides with an intrinsic difference in motivations, rather than socially
impressed. And is therefore _still_ reiterating dogma.
Now look at the two dominant world religions - both of which have for
centuries had as their canon the subordination of wives to their husbands
and women to men. Did Summers address that "elephant in the living room"?
God no! Talk about a literally sacrosanct subject! I'd have been supporting
him to my death, if he had attacked those canons with a few cannons of his
own!
Joshua Halpern
Well now, rather than looking at how well someone does on one of these
"tests" let us look at what people's motivations are.
There is a class of people who look at these tests, figure that it means
nothing to them and fill in all the answers at random, leave the room
and take a break.
Another figures out that they might get something out of a good mark,
but it is nothing to get all hyper about. They do pretty well, but
don't break their heads on it.
Then there are the gerbils.
Which group is the most intelligent?
Which is why IQ tests are worthless.
josh halpern
Virgil
Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
> Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#vir...@COMCAST.com> wrote:
> > Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote:
> >> That men are superior to women was, and many cases still is, the most
> >> accepted dogma. Summers wasn't stating some truth, he was the one who
> >> attempted to use a handful of questionable observations which ended
> >> up reiterating dogma that is thousands of years old.
> >
> > But Summers didn't say anything like that. What he said was that men
> > appear to be statistically more variable than women in almost every
> > measurable characteristic. This means that while men may have more of
> > the extremely bright they also have more of the extrememly dim.
> >
> > It is those extremely dim at statistics who have misrepresented what
> > was actually said and raised this whole foofah.
>
> Ahem. Summers listed three factors, in order of alleged importance (my
> paraphrasing, obviously):
>
> 1) Motivation - intrinsic or socially impressed.
> 2) Intrinsic ability.
> 3) Social influences.
>
> The first two have been used for centuries to rationalize limiting the
> rights of women - hence the bitter attacks against him. The fact that his
> argument was modestly novel doesn't erase the priority he assigned to the
> factor, nor its checkered history. Because of its use in the abuse of human
> rights, use of "intrinsic ability" and its variants seem, IMHO, to deserve
> careful scrutiny.
Have you actually read, to the point of understanding, what he said
about intrinsic ability? Do you understand what it means to say that
one population has a larger standard deviation or larger variance than
another? It specifically does NOT mean that either of the populations in
question is inherently better or worse than the other, only that one is
more variable than the other. If he had said anything about the mean
(average) levels of ability, you might have had a case, but he
specifically denied any such implication.
Virgil
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Which is why IQ tests are worthless
.
Tools are best used when used for the purposes for which they were
designed.
IQ tests were originally designed as a diagnostic tool to assess the
needs of young students thought to be below avarage enough to be in need
of special education. For that purpose, at least, they seem to have been
reasonably effective. But as they are misused now, they are of at best
questionable value.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <Vn56e.50$45.1...@news.uchicago.edu>,
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> <Jam...@Lugoj.com> writes:
>> >"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> "Karl Uppiano" wrote:
>> >>> I'll take scholarship over indoctrination any day.
>
>> >Summers wasn't engaging in scholarship. He was speculating, off the
>> >cuff,
>> >at best. That is more akin to what people people do at a bar, over a
>> >beer.
>
>> First, he said explicitly that he's going to speculate. Second, his
>> "speculations" were based on existing observations.
>
>scholarship on his topic, as any academic should before talking to
>the experts in the field.
Rubbish. He was asked to deliver a general address, not a review of
the field.
> He has a history of arrogance,
Not relevant.
> and that has something to do with the reaction of the Harvard faculty.
The only way in which I can describe the reaction of the Harvard
faculty is "shameful".
>
>Summers was not engaging in scholarship. He is not an academic. He
>is an administrator. He was making ill-informed comments to justify
>Harvard's failings.
>
>> >>> People should be able to talk about this stuff, especially in
>> >>> universities. They're supposed to be looking for the truth, not
>> >>> spouting dogma.
>
>> >That men are superior to women was, and many cases still is, the most
>> >accepted dogma. Summers wasn't stating some truth, he was the one who
>> >attempted to use a handful of questionable observations
>
>> There is little questionable about the observations that the standard
>> deviations for the distributions of various cognitive abilieties
>> (probably not only cognitive) are a tad larger for men than for women.
>
>Which has nothing to with nature versus nurture debates, or what is
>intrinsic and what is socialization.
>
Kindly keep your red herrings to yourself. It has a hell of a lot to
do with the common argument that "the lack of equality at the top of
the profession is a proof of discrimination". Very much on topic.
>> > which ended up reiterating dogma that is thousands of years old.
>
>> Straight from a PC manual, this one.
>
>The above is not rational argument. No rational reason has been
>given to reject the statement that Summers was "reiterating dogma
>that is thousands of years old."
Iddiotic statements do not deserve rational arguments, only derision.
Summers presented a *rational* argument, anchored in existing data.
This doesn't mean that the argument was unassailable. One can argue
the accuracy of said data, the meanigfullness of the measure being
used, the sampling procedures, etc. That could also have been a
rational argument. But using as dismissal the statement that Summers'
argument is "reiterating dogma that is thousands of years old", this
is ***not*** a rational argument, just PC garbage. And same goes for
most crap that came from Harvard faculty on the topic.
>
>> >Last I looked, no matriarchies (oppressive to men or otherwise) have
>> >formed in the tiny handful of years that women have had the vote and the
>> >right to birth control, so all this angst to "protect" Summers from his
>> >shoddy "scholarship" seems sadly misplaced.
>> >
>> >Sure, people should be able to talk about unpleasant things. And it is
>> >only right and proper that people should be able to get angry about
>> >questionable "truths" that have been used in the past as rationale to
>> >curb their rights.
>
>> >> You're in trouble already, young man. Mandatory women's studies and
>> >> sensitivity training for you, followed by expulsion.
>
>> >Your sarcasm is misplaced. Summers' took a piece of statistical
>> >information (the comparative width of scores from "standardized" IQ
>> >tests
>> >between genders) and ran too far with it.
>
>> Too far? He pointed that such difference amounts to a lot when you
>> get to, say, 4 standard deviations away from center. Takes an idiot
>> to say that a statement to this effect is "too far".
>
>Which has nothing to with nature versus nurture debates.
See above and work on your reading comprehension.
>
>> > Considering the mountain of
>> >evidence showing that the legacy of patriarchal dominance (feel free to
>> >contest that history - it'd be amusing) lingers on, to claim it was no
>> >longer a factor worth considering in his analysis
>
>> But he didn't say anything like this. He did say, in fact, that
>> social and cultural factors may have influence and even open bias may
>> exist. Only, he added that there may be intrinsic factors, as well.
>> So now you crossed the boundary from spewing PC gibberish to plain
>> lying. Which is about what could've been expected.
>
>The above is stupid. We have no reason to know that any
>misrepresentation is deliberate.
>
>Summers ranked the factors. He did not merely "add... that there may
>be intrinsic factors, as well." Is Mati lying by omission?
>
In his words, "And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in
exactly the order that I just described". He presents his view.
Perfectly legitimate, that's how discussion among reasonable people
are being conducted. What PC garbage considers appropriate, that's
another story.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> But he didn't say anything like this. He did say, in fact, that
>> social and cultural factors may have influence and even open bias may
>> exist. Only, he added that there may be intrinsic factors, as well.
>> So now you crossed the boundary from spewing PC gibberish to plain
>> lying. Which is about what could've been expected.
>
>genetic differences in the way femaies think as compared to males is the
>Harvard equivalent to yelling Nigger, Nigger out loud. The authors of
>-The Bell Curve- met the same kind of reaction.
>
academic intelligentsia" pretty much descended to the level of Galileo
detractors (who refused to look through his telescope since
"obviously, what it shows cannot be true"). Sad, very sad.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Yes, exactly.
Repeating Rifle
s...@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu wrote on 4/10/05 6:58 AM:
Although I have run into women that like to flyfish, they are relatively
few. They, with exceptions, just are not as single-minded about flyfishing.
There are many men who would rather use dynamite to fish rather than flies.
Women probably keep a better perspective. The same can be said about
computing, cars, and even chemistry.
Just look at the posts on this group. Most are from people with masculine
sounding names. And chemistry appears to be of more interest to women than
physics, mathematics, or engineering.
I am not saying that greater devotion to a hobby or profession by men
compared to women is better. But it is different.
Bill
Bill
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> Jim Logajan <Jam...@Lugoj.com> writes:
>>>accepted dogma. Summers wasn't stating some truth, he was the one who
>>>attempted to use a handful of questionable observations
>>
>> deviations for the distributions of various cognitive abilieties
>> (probably not only cognitive) are a tad larger for men than for women.
>
>referenced in one of the URLs I included but that you elected to elide?
>
because you happened to list, unless you'll *first* provide a good
reason why should I follow it. Hope this is clear.
>>> which ended up reiterating dogma that is thousands of years old.
>>>
>> Straight from a PC manual, this one.
>
>Which part are you contesting? The statement that the dogma is thousands of
>years old, that it was a reiteration of that dogma, or both?
>
That it was a reiteratoin of this or any dogma. And I'm not
"contesting" it, I'm rejecting it as garbage. There is nothing in
Summers words to the effect that "men are better than women". A
statement to the effect that if the width of the distributions is
different then there will be different proportions on both extremas of
the cognitive spectrum does not translate into "men are better than
women". Anybody with just adequate cognitive skills (well, just a
notch or two above those of an average Harvard faculty) should be able
to comprehend this.
>I know of at least two major world religions that are centuries old which
>promote the subordination of women to men - and they are still quite active
>in the U.S. So I presume I irritated you only with the "reiteration" part?
>It is pointless, devisive, and is irrelevant to the argument so, if
>possible, please consider that part retracted.
Too late for this.
>
>>>Your sarcasm is misplaced. Summers' took a piece of statistical
>>>information (the comparative width of scores from "standardized" IQ
>>>tests between genders) and ran too far with it.
>>
>> Too far? He pointed that such difference amounts to a lot when you
>> get to, say, 4 standard deviations away from center. Takes an idiot
>> to say that a statement to this effect is "too far".
>
>First, I haven't used any personal insults, so if you can refrain from them
>I'd appreciate it.
Well, I used it and I mean it. Feel free to be offended.
> Feel free to humiliate me with facts - I can deal with
>that. Secondly, Summers himself says "Now, it's pointed out by one of the
>papers at this conference that these tests are not a very good measure and
>are not highly predictive with respect to people's ability to do that. And
>that's absolutely right." And in spite of saying that it is _absolutely
>right_ that the tests aren't highly predictive, he continues on that track
>anyway! Hence my "running too far" assessment.
>
While they're not a "very good measure" in terms of having a close to
1 correlation with abilities as evidenced by an actual achievement,
nobody came with a better measure so far. And as for "not being
highly predctive", I would say that you won't find many 3-sigma below
mean people among research scientist and not many 3 sigma above
average people among janitors. The scatter in the measure is
sufficiently large that one cannot use a difference of 5-10 points as
a reliable predictor. A difference of 20-30 points is pretty
reliable.
Besides, the very idea that one should not say anything in a
scientific forum unless all the i-s have been dotted and all the t-s
crossed is ridiculous to the extreme and, in fact, downright idiotic
(yse, here it is again and I do mean it again). Progress is being
made through hypothesising based on incomplete data, then using the
hypotheses as guidance in the completion of the data.
>>> Considering the mountain of
>>>evidence showing that the legacy of patriarchal dominance (feel free
>>>to contest that history - it'd be amusing) lingers on, to claim it was
>>>no longer a factor worth considering in his analysis
>>
>> But he didn't say anything like this. He did say, in fact, that
>> social and cultural factors may have influence and even open bias may
>> exist. Only, he added that there may be intrinsic factors, as well.
>
>The order of importance and the emphasis of his points are pretty explicit,
>and "intrinsic factors" weren't "added" - they were what he considered most
>important. He explicitly listed the factors in order of importance, and
>intrinsic motivation and intrinsic ability both top social factors in his
>analysis:
>
>"One is what I would call the - I'll explain each of these in a few moments
>and comment on how important I think they are - the first is what I call
>the high-powered job hypothesis.
>
>The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the
>high end,
>
>and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of
>discrimination in a search.
>
>And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order
>that I just described."
Yes. he presented the order of importance, in his view (stating
explicitly that this is a view, not a "research result". He did not
say that his number three is "no longer a factor worth considering in
his analysis", in fact he explicitly did list it. So either, as I said
before, you lied, or you've reading comprehension problems.
>
>I've never posted on this subject before, nor have I personally attacked
>you, so I don't understand what this "which is about what could've been
>expected" personal attack is referencing.
It is referencing PC crap and all those who propagate it.
> And I have tried my best to explain why I believed his remarks were
>essentially dismissive of the social and cultural factors.
In which you failed, miserably. Go away.
jmfb...@aol.com
Then you're not looking in the correct places. All of my family fish.
OTOH, we don't do it as a hobby. We fish for our supper so we don't
waste money at the grocery store.
> .. They, with exceptions, just are not as single-minded about flyfishing.
>There are many men who would rather use dynamite to fish rather than
flies.
>Women probably keep a better perspective. The same can be said about
>computing, cars, and even chemistry.
This single-mindedness has nothing to do with gender differences. It
has everything to do with economic differences. Frugal people do
not obsess on spending all their money on one thing; if they did
they wouldn't be frugal.
>
>Just look at the posts on this group. Most are from people with masculine
>sounding names.
Now think about why that is true. Is it possible that the females
are off working and not taking time to post?
> ..And chemistry appears to be of more interest to women than
>physics, mathematics, or engineering.
How do you know?!!! Throughout my life there have been both males
and females in all of the above. I simply do not understand how
this myth got started. Well..I do understand, I just can't fathom
people accepting the myth when actually looking around them would do.
>
>I am not saying that greater devotion to a hobby or profession by men
>compared to women is better. But it is different.
Of course it's different. It's even different among indiduals
of the same gender. Who the fuck cares as long as these
people work at producing rather than work prevention.
IME, the simple act of bringing up gender bias always has the
side effect of work prevention, period. I have seen people do
this on purpose so that no useful work gets done.
Now, IMO, the Harvard president was foolish to bring this up
because it is known to only create work prevention. Bringing
up the subject of religion, politics, and salary comparisons would
have a similar smoke and mirror effect.
It would nice to be able to yak about it but these people haven't
matured enough to be able to talk about it objectively.
jmfb...@aol.com
Your essay is exactly the rhetoric that is done to avoid discussing
the real problem.
>
>So where are the math geeks to be found? Usually running their own
>companies
This is a contradiction. Math types don't really like running
businesses because it involves politics which implies that
one's success relies completely on social interaction done well.
> .. and thanking god they're out of academia.
I have spent the last 10 years trying find the geeks and
pointing their itch and how many different ways they can
scratch it. Most of the time all I need to do is observe
that they have the itch and give them permission to scratch
it. I don't even have to say more than one sentence about
the "how" of the biz.
The most amazing thing is that all they need is permission.
Now, think about that in depth. You'll begin to define
the real problem. EEO was designed to withhold that permission.
jmfb...@aol.com
>which should have been about why Americans aren't choosing
>science and math.<<
>
>
>The subset of this question was also addressed by him and I give him an
>E for missing what I think is one part of the big picture. For those
>people who do chose the sciences, why are the women to be found almost
>exclusively in the life sciences, and those that deal with human
>beings?
I can tell you that. It's the branch of science that has
the most production potential for continuation of the species.
>
>Here's my take on it. This has nothing to do with math skills at all,
>except in a derivative way. There is less math in the life sciences
Then the biology biz has changed a lot since I went to school.
To get a biology degree back then one ended up with almost
a chemistry major just for the prerequisites one had to take.
A bio major also had to have physics. As an undergrad I had
to do a hell of a lot of math when I took my bio, chem, and
physics labs.
OTOH, the medical profession isn't as rigorous.
Then you know nothing about genius and how they think and work.
> ..At that point, they merely felt the way the
>average woman feels all the time. Before that, they were in a kind of
>high-testosterone shoot em up fugue-state that it really takes a Galois
>to understand.
The geniuses I knew and studied were not like this. A genius
has a broad view of existence and is able to apply one idea in
on area to subjects that are completely different.
> ..I don't think the academic politically-correct
>squat-to-piss types at Harvard will EVER get it. Fortunately, the
>progress of science (mostly) doesn't depend on it.
Then you are part of the problem. Progress of science does depend
on this longterm. Where are the bright ones going to find
mentors who concentrate on a particular subject? In the past,
this function evolved within the universities and it was called
grad school.
My efforts over the last 10 years has been to preserve knowledge
because I have watched huge amounts be completely destroyed.
Your attitude will ensure that the infrastructure established
to pass knowledge from one generation to the next will be destroyed.
>
>The real battle is over money and power, of course. The big Harvard
>debates wouldn't care of fewer women went into the "hard" sciences, if
>there wasn't some kind of odd public perception that the "soft"
>sciences are somehow less important to progress, or that even the less
>mathematical parts of physics (ie, experimental physics and applied
>technology) were somehow less important than pure theory. They aren't.
>All are equally necessary for progress. The fact is that women have
>been working in the sciences since as long as the sciences have been
>around.
Sigh! They have been working in the sciences way before the
activity had a name.
> ..But they've been doing the parts of the labor which haven't
>gotten the recognition.
Why are you measuring production based on Hollywood star values?
>
>Just about anybody of average intelligence can eventually be trained to
>do algebra, simple calculus, or statistics. Most progress in science
>comes from hard work, curiosity, self-questioning, and relentless
>honesty. Much of it can be done by people who can't divide 60 by 5, if
>they have access to somebody (or something) that can. The ability to do
>the very highest sort of math is a rather Martian trait, like the
>ability to play a peice of music by ear on some instrument, after
>hearing it just once. Those people who have this kind of talent are
>rare, always young, usually male, and often somewhat odd.
NOT IN MY EXPERIENCE!!!!! The only ones _you notice_ are the
young odd males.
> ... Left to
>themselves, they often do not drift into all areas of the sciences
>equally. So what? But they can usually be persuaded to work in them, as
>part of a team. As for the rest of science, men and women generally
>compete on a more or less equal footing so far as basic skills, and if
>they happen to have different interests in the kinds of science they
>happen to want to work in, so what? It's only our job as a society to
>make sure that we don't tend to undervalue the various scientific
>fields that women prefer, BECAUSE women tend to prefer them. Other than
>that, let the chips fall where they may.
There are days when I would like to knock your sexist blinkers
off your head, but then I become compassionate and decide not
to because you wouldn't be able to handle the truth. Since
I feel like a real bitch this morning, flick...
Robert Kolker
>>
>
> In his words, "And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in
> exactly the order that I just described". He presents his view.
> Perfectly legitimate, that's how discussion among reasonable people
> are being conducted. What PC garbage considers appropriate, that's
> another story.
In the land of PC any discussion of inherent or intrinsic ability or
inclination is taken as prima-facia evidence of Fascism. Any test in
which women do poorly (such as muscular power) or in which "persons of
color" do poorly (i.q. tests) is prima-facia evidence that the test is
(1) wrong; (2) irrelevent (3) biased. Any hint that some people are
better at somethings than others is evidence of Evil.
In the land of PC only Shi'ite egalitarianism is on the paths of
righteousness.
Bob Kolker
Lloyd Parker
"Karl Uppiano" <karl.u...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I'll take scholarship over indoctrination any day. People should be able
to
>looking for the truth, not spouting dogma.
>
>
Lloyd Parker
fundamentalism.
Lloyd Parker
>greatest amount of controversy. Those that are obviously wrong get
dismissed
>out of hand. For example: "All women are incredibly stupid."
>
>People also dismiss statements that are true, if they are believed to be
>true. "The world is round." is not going attract as much today as it would
>six centuries ago.
>
>"Women are no good at math." is half true. Most men are no good at it
>either, but that is another story.
>
>My personal experience has been that average women do not take up their
>hobbies or work as passionately as average men do. For example, very few
>women get obsessed by computers even though many women do work with
>computers. If they do, it is more likely to be with a use of computers,
such
>as chatting, rather than with the technology itself. This unwillingness to
>be obsessive about such things is probably a good thing--but it is
>different.
>
But in college, men are far more likely to party and drink than women too.
A think a lot depends on the expectations the school and the instructor
communicate to students. My expectations are that women will do as well as
the men, and that's what happens.
>Bill
>
Lloyd Parker
>>>> I'll take scholarship over indoctrination any day.
>>
>>at best. That is more akin to what people people do at a bar, over a
>>beer.
>>
>"speculations" were based on existing observations.
When's the last time he taught science or math?
>
>>>> People should be able to talk about this stuff, especially in
>>>> universities. They're supposed to be looking for the truth, not
>>>> spouting dogma.
>>
>>That men are superior to women was, and many cases still is, the most
>>accepted dogma. Summers wasn't stating some truth, he was the one who
>>attempted to use a handful of questionable observations
>
>There is little questionable about the observations that the standard
>deviations for the distributions of various cognitive abilieties
>(probably not only cognitive) are a tad larger for men than for women.
>
>> which ended up reiterating dogma that is thousands of years old.
>>
>Straight from a PC manual, this one.
>
>>Last I looked, no matriarchies (oppressive to men or otherwise) have
>>formed in the tiny handful of years that women have had the vote and the
>>right to birth control, so all this angst to "protect" Summers from his
>>shoddy "scholarship" seems sadly misplaced.
>>
>>Sure, people should be able to talk about unpleasant things. And it is
>>only right and proper that people should be able to get angry about
>>questionable "truths" that have been used in the past as rationale to
>>curb their rights.
>>
>>> You're in trouble already, young man. Mandatory women's studies and
>>> sensitivity training for you, followed by expulsion.
>>
>>Your sarcasm is misplaced. Summers' took a piece of statistical
>>information (the comparative width of scores from "standardized" IQ tests
>>between genders) and ran too far with it.
>
>Too far? He pointed that such difference amounts to a lot when you
>get to, say, 4 standard deviations away from center. Takes an idiot
>to say that a statement to this effect is "too far".
>
>> Considering the mountain of
>>evidence showing that the legacy of patriarchal dominance (feel free to
>>contest that history - it'd be amusing) lingers on, to claim it was no
>>longer a factor worth considering in his analysis
>
>But he didn't say anything like this. He did say, in fact, that
>social and cultural factors may have influence and even open bias may
>exist. Only, he added that there may be intrinsic factors, as well.
>So now you crossed the boundary from spewing PC gibberish to plain
>lying. Which is about what could've been expected.
And if he'd said that about blacks or Jews instead of women?
>
>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Lloyd Parker
"muha" <muha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The guy was right.
Not from my experience. The top students in my chem classes are almost
always women.
> They got all over him because he insulted many
>people before. (This time, he touched on one of the ortodoxies of the
>academic lefties and Harvard is full of them.) But he is a poor
>politician and a presidency at a big uni is mostly politics with a bit
>of administration. If he was just a prof, he would be free to say a
>provocative stuff.
>
>
>
>Steven O. wrote:
>> In January of 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers delivered a
>> speech where he speculated about the causes of the disparity in
>> professional achievements between men and women in
>> science/engineering. The speech provoked a firestorm of critical
>> comments, particularly in academia, but also in the general media.
>>
>> I have written an essay in response to Summers' critics. The gist of
>> the essay is not to take a stand on Summers' hypotheses, but rather
>to
>> support and promote the free expression of ideas in general.
>>
>> The essay can be found at
>> http://www.spyingonthecollegeofyourchoice.com/Essays.shtml
>>
>> Fair Disclosure: The site is a partly commercial site which promotes
>> my book, Spying On The College Of Your Choice. However, the content
>> of the essay is "on topic" in terms of addressing the ethical issues
>> behind both Summers' speech and the response it received.
>>
>> I would welcome feedback from readers. You can find my e-mail
>address
>> by poking around the Web site.
>>
>> Steve O.
>>
>>
>> "Spying On The College Of Your Choice" -- How to pick the college
>that is the Best Match for a high school student's needs.
>> http://www.SpyingOnTheCollegeOfYourChoice.com
>
Robert Kolker
> OTOH, relegating a gender to second-class status is a mark of religious
> fundamentalism.
No one has relegated a gender to anything. Admission to college is on
basis of test scores and recomendations. Admission to grad school is on
the basis of merit. Publishable papers are judged without regard to the
gender of the author.
There are no legal impediments to wymyn entering the sciences. They have
to compete with males and it is a case of the best human winning. If Ed
Witten were Edwina Witten she would be just as smart.
Bob Kolker
Lloyd Parker
compete, inherently.
Robert Kolker
>
> And "women can't do science" isn't dogma?
Who says women can't do science? That is so... so... retro.
Bob Kolker
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> In his words, "And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in
>> exactly the order that I just described". He presents his view.
>> Perfectly legitimate, that's how discussion among reasonable people
>> are being conducted. What PC garbage considers appropriate, that's
>> another story.
>
>inclination is taken as prima-facia evidence of Fascism. Any test in
>which women do poorly (such as muscular power) or in which "persons of
>color" do poorly (i.q. tests) is prima-facia evidence that the test is
>(1) wrong; (2) irrelevent (3) biased. Any hint that some people are
>better at somethings than others is evidence of Evil.
>
>In the land of PC only Shi'ite egalitarianism is on the paths of
>righteousness.
>
Beware of any movements which are about "righteousness".
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
off your head, but then I become compassionate and decide not
to because you wouldn't be able to handle the truth. Since
I feel like a real bitch this morning, flick... <<
Indeed, reading your replies put me in mind of the Monty Python skit.
I'd like an arugment, please.
You don't want an argument.
Yes, I do.
No, you don't.
Yes I do.
Unfortunately, I'm not in the mood to argue with somebody who just
wants to argue. I've just finished filing a number of patents,
publishing an abstract with a university team, and am in the process of
trying to coordinate the manufacture of a completely new
pharamaceutical product. I understand teamwork and innovation, thanks.
As for the "rigor" of various disciplines, I can directly compare a
few. I have a medical degree, but also have an ACS chemistry degree,
with the minor in physics, so I had to take a lot of biology courses on
cram to get into medical school when I finally decided to do it. I
found the equivalent-level biology easier. But that may only be a
personal thing. And medical school itself is really two different
schools, each with a completely separate skill set required in each.
Few people do it all well. I've since worked and collaborated with a
very broad range of scientists in various fields, and have found that
all of them are smart, but in a shocking variety of different ways.
Most are regular guys in most ways.
As for *Genius,* I've met a few people like Gell Mann, and I'm still
not sure what "genius" is supposed to be, Gleick's essay
notwithstanding (I never met Feynman, but heck, neither did Gleick).
Plenty of people are very good at one thing. Universal genius types
like Ben Franklin are very very very rare indeed, and are amazing, but
aren't strictly necessary. Somebody said that a "genius" is a guy who
has TWO really outstandingly good ideas in a lifetime. But science and
the rest of humanity progress fine with bright people like Darwin, who
only have one. And if Darwin had never been born, there was still
Wallace. Probably no single person advances or holds back progress by
more than a few years. The great organizers are possible exceptions,
but even they are replacable.
You did say one worthwhile thing in your other answer, which is that a
lot of progress involves merely giving talented people *permission* to
act. That is profoundly true. Institutions do it poorly, however,
except possibly during desperate times (wars and such). Even centers
of isolated inovation in peace like the Lockheed Skunk Works and NASA
were driven by the cold war. And even they decay with time. Probably
they are driven by a few special people, the David Kellys or the Werner
von Brauns or whatever, and they drift when these people go, as Los
Alamos did when Oppenheimer left. And the Kellys and the von Brauns and
even the Leslie Groves' have a talent for organization, and a talent,
sometimes called leadership, which allows them to appear to "give
permission" for other people to follow their wild ideas into reality.
But that's not universal genius. It's a talent, sure, but the people
who have it are people like Kelly and von Braun, not Ben Franklin.
They're smart, but hardly universally so (Oppenheimer comes closer to
being a genius, but even he needed Groves to make a perfect team). The
ability of leaders of innovation teams to get things done involves
using other talented people the way a conductor uses an orchestra. The
result can be amazing if it's done well, but when it is, there's still
no more genius in the conductor than there is in the individual
musicians. The conductor's just the schmuck up front with the extra
large ego. In science, they give this guy the Nobel Prize when his team
wins, as they did Carlo Rubio, but mainly because they have to give it
to SOMEBODY, and the guy up front with the ego is the only choice.
SBH
Steve Turner
<s...@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu> wrote:
>My personal belief, filtered through my plethora of biases, has been
>that average men do not take up their their hobbies or work as
>passionately as average women do. Let me give an example so I don't
>seem like a dickhead. Very few men have an obsession for poetry or
>other literary artforms even though many men do work with words. (This
>is a clear observation, free from any slant by me of course.) If they
>do, it is more likely to be with a use of words, such as filling out
>forms or loudly asserting macho statements, rather than any art. This
>unwillingness to be obsessive about such things (and general lack of
>imagination) is probably a good thing, (after all, someone has to fill
>out all those damn forms), but it is obviously different from being
>truly creative and intelligent.
I don't buy it. I have known women who are obsessive about hobbies,
but their hobbies are different -- things like knitting and craft
stuff. Artistic pursuits, though sometimes also with a functional
result (quilting, for e.g.). Painting, sculpture. Their level of
devotion to these things can match any man's love of his craft, IMO.
I have been to many hamfests (amateur radio swap meets) and have yet
to see a single women buying something. I have never seen a female
computer hardware hobbiest. I have seen few female engine
enthusiasts. There are female shooters out there, but they tend to
engage in the hobby for utilitarian (self-defense) reasons rather than
love of guns or marksmanship. Female motorcycle enthusiasts are rare.
Steve Turner
jmfb...@aol.com
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <m50g519526s5kgij1...@4ax.com>, Steven O.
>>In January of 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers delivered a
>>speech where he speculated about the causes of the disparity in
>>professional achievements between men and women in
>>science/engineering. The speech provoked a firestorm of critical
>>comments, particularly in academia, but also in the general media.
>
>intelligentsia towards, what was the phrase, the "ashheap of history".
>>
>>I have written an essay in response to Summers' critics. The gist of
>>the essay is not to take a stand on Summers' hypotheses, but rather to
>>support and promote the free expression of ideas in general.
>>
>>The essay can be found at
>>http://www.spyingonthecollegeofyourchoice.com/Essays.shtml
>
>you're following, you may be interested.
I finally got out yesterday. The essay wasn't available and I'm not
savvy enough to finger out Mishit balks.
I did read, finally, what the guy actually said. I still
give him an E rating of mentioning gender even though he
asked to talk about it and it would take a very clever person
to leave the genderness out.
It also verified my gut reaction that the intelligensia's outrage
was truly smoke and mirrors designed to ignore the real problems.
I was puzzled by his term "socialization". What he talking about
promotions, where promotions mean going from a lower job
classification to the next higher job classification? It was
also clear that this guy also didn't know how to recognize
work done well.
jmfb...@aol.com
>off your head, but then I become compassionate and decide not
>to because you wouldn't be able to handle the truth. Since
>I feel like a real bitch this morning, flick... <<
>
>Indeed, reading your replies put me in mind of the Monty Python skit.
>
>I'd like an arugment, please.
>You don't want an argument.
>Yes, I do.
>No, you don't.
>Yes I do.
I know this is your reaction which is why I never address the problem.
>
>Unfortunately, I'm not in the mood to argue with somebody who just
>wants to argue. I've just finished filing a number of patents,
>publishing an abstract with a university team, and am in the process of
>trying to coordinate the manufacture of a completely new
>pharamaceutical product. I understand teamwork and innovation, thanks.
I know you understand how to get some things done. I also know
that you are quite clever. I also know that you do not apply your
training when you think about certain subjects; you are hardwared
to skip all the sanity checks.
The only reason I picked on this is because somebody has to say
no and this particular subject is one of the weeds that I intend
to eradicate. (you can stop laughing now, Mati).
>As for the "rigor" of various disciplines, I can directly compare a
>few. I have a medical degree, but also have an ACS chemistry degree,
>with the minor in physics, so I had to take a lot of biology courses on
>cram to get into medical school when I finally decided to do it. I
>found the equivalent-level biology easier. But that may only be a
>personal thing.
Medical requirements were always easy compared to a real bio degree.
> .. And medical school itself is really two different
>schools, each with a completely separate skill set required in each.
>Few people do it all well. I've since worked and collaborated with a
>very broad range of scientists in various fields, and have found that
>all of them are smart, but in a shocking variety of different ways.
>Most are regular guys in most ways.
>
>As for *Genius,* I've met a few people like Gell Mann, and I'm still
>not sure what "genius" is supposed to be, Gleick's essay
>notwithstanding (I never met Feynman, but heck, neither did Gleick).
I use a particular measurement to distinguish between very clever
and genius. It's worked so far.
>Plenty of people are very good at one thing. Universal genius types
>like Ben Franklin are very very very rare indeed, and are amazing, but
>aren't strictly necessary. Somebody said that a "genius" is a guy who
>has TWO really outstandingly good ideas in a lifetime.
That's not genius by my definition.
> ..But science and
>the rest of humanity progress fine with bright people like Darwin, who
>only have one. And if Darwin had never been born, there was still
>Wallace. Probably no single person advances or holds back progress by
>more than a few years. The great organizers are possible exceptions,
>but even they are replacable.
>
>You did say one worthwhile thing in your other answer, which is that a
>lot of progress involves merely giving talented people *permission* to
>act. That is profoundly true. Institutions do it poorly, however,
>except possibly during desperate times (wars and such). Even centers
>of isolated inovation in peace like the Lockheed Skunk Works and NASA
>were driven by the cold war. And even they decay with time. Probably
>they are driven by a few special people, the David Kellys or the Werner
>von Brauns or whatever, and they drift when these people go, as Los
>Alamos did when Oppenheimer left. And the Kellys and the von Brauns and
>even the Leslie Groves' have a talent for organization, and a talent,
>sometimes called leadership, which allows them to appear to "give
>permission" for other people to follow their wild ideas into reality.
That's not leadership. People often confuse the two. Some people
call it herding cats. The real good cat herders know how to
keep all the cats voluntarily corralled. Leadership occurs
among the workers. If you rely on a manager for your leadership
then the organization is already halfway down the slippery slope.
>But that's not universal genius. It's a talent, sure, but the people
>who have it are people like Kelly and von Braun, not Ben Franklin.
>They're smart, but hardly universally so (Oppenheimer comes closer to
>being a genius, but even he needed Groves to make a perfect team).
Oppenheimer, like all productive people, needed a bullshit
umbrella so that one could spend 100% of their time and energy
doing the real work rather than asslicking.
> .. The
>ability of leaders of innovation teams to get things done involves
>using other talented people the way a conductor uses an orchestra. The
>result can be amazing if it's done well, but when it is, there's still
>no more genius in the conductor than there is in the individual
>musicians. The conductor's just the schmuck up front with the extra
>large ego.
You don't understand how things work when there's a bunch
of productive people :-(.
> .. In science, they give this guy the Nobel Prize when his team
>wins, as they did Carlo Rubio, but mainly because they have to give it
>to SOMEBODY, and the guy up front with the ego is the only choice.
That's one of reasons I don't like "prizes" and shit. Look at
this newsgroup and see how much people concentrate on the
"number 1" of some random evaluation list. However, human
beings don't seem to be able to admire people for the unseen
work they do finish but lap it up if there is glitz, glamour,
and a tad of drama in the mix.
Would you rather learn from a text that Einstein used and
made notes or would you rather learn from a text that contains
all of the refinements done after Einstein's evolved through
the physics biz?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 04:45 AM, mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu said:
>Iddiotic statements do not deserve rational arguments, only derision.
> Summers presented a *rational* argument, anchored in existing data.
Really? Did he mention the studies of teacher behavior in classrooms?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 08:23 AM, mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu said:
>There is little questionable about the observations that the standard
> deviations for the distributions of various cognitive abilieties
>(probably not only cognitive) are a tad larger for men than for
>women.
There is little questionable about the observation that male students
receive more attention from their teachers than female students in the
same class. What controls are you using to rule out the obvious causal
relationship? When someone runs a controlled experiment I'll be
impressed by the differences in standardized test results.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
because it was high time somebody gets this cat out of the back.
Thinking that "if it is not mentioned, the issue is not there" is
naive. It is very much there. On the other hand I give him F--- for
backing off and apologizing.
>It also verified my gut reaction that the intelligensia's outrage
>was truly smoke and mirrors designed to ignore the real problems.
>
Of course.
>I was puzzled by his term "socialization". What he talking about
>promotions, where promotions mean going from a lower job
>classification to the next higher job classification?
Ehh? Socialization occurs nearly from birth. This is the process
through which child turns from animal to human.
> It was also clear that this guy also didn't know how to recognize
>work done well.
>
Possible, but I don't think it is much relevant.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In <Vn56e.50$45.1...@news.uchicago.edu>, on 04/10/2005
> at 08:23 AM, mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu said:
>
>>There is little questionable about the observations that the standard
>> deviations for the distributions of various cognitive abilieties
>>(probably not only cognitive) are a tad larger for men than for
>>women.
>
>There is little questionable about the observation that male students
>receive more attention from their teachers than female students in the
>same class.
Really. Given that the vast majority of teachers, through elementary
and even middle school are female, are you still willing to claim the
above? I would rather say that they receive more "negative
attention", as in closer scrutiny of their behavior, through this
period. And these are the formative years. So, I would rather say
that "there is a hell of a lot of questionable, in the above".
Besides, this is, plain and simple irrelevant to the topic. You
appear to attempt to steer towards the "nature versus nurture" issue,
but this is *not* the issue, sorry. If you've, say, two ethnic groups
such that in one of them one in fifty males reaches a height of 6'6" or
above, while in the other only one in five thousand reaches such height,
then this may have to do with genetic factors, but on the other hand
it may be a result of nutritional differences. But, by the time
you're getting to the NBA draft, it is the situation at hand, not the
causes, that matters. So one of this groups will be much heavier
represented than the other and no, this is not discrimination.
Similarly, if you've one ethnic group where the kids study dilligently
and do their best to excel in school, this may (not, I say "may", not
"is") be purely cultural affect with no genetic underpinnings. But,
by the time it comes to university faculty requitment, it does have an
effect and no, again, it is not discrimination.
As for the differences in standard deviations, mentioned above, as I
recall they appear pretty constant accross various cultures with
widely different standards of upbringing. This rather seems to weight
against a purely social effect.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In <Nhn6e.1$45....@news.uchicago.edu>, on 04/11/2005
> at 04:45 AM, mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu said:
>
>>Iddiotic statements do not deserve rational arguments, only derision.
>> Summers presented a *rational* argument, anchored in existing data.
>
>Really? Did he mention the studies of teacher behavior in classrooms?
>
1) The irrelevance of this is touched on in another post.
2) The standard that argument qualifies as "rational" only if it
mentions *all* the data in existance that maybe, possibly, has some
bearing on the topic, is nonsensical.
3) The studies of teacher behavior in classrooms that you mention are
of the classic type of "liberal arts studies", non-quantitative,
full of impressions and anecdotal evidence. I would not (this is
*****not*****) take them seriously. YMMV.