Income Disparities Based On Sex
Clayton Cramer
time to give some of reason to hate me even more.
There has been a lot of discussion of disparities in income between men
and women lately; there has been quite a bit of discussion in net.women
of why there are so few women in engineering, with the clear presumption
that this must be because of societal pressures to keep women away from
"man's work". I was reading an article in the paper today which, while
hardly conclusive, might want to give all of us some reason to wonder
if this presumption is correct.
The article was one of those rather chatty newspaper articles under the
category "Science", where science has been simplified (and perhaps
bastardized) in the pursuit of a wide audience. Let me therefore state
that it is possible the newspaper reporter got something garbled --- then
again, maybe this is an accurate statement of fact.
The article is titled "What Einstein's brain teaches us", and along with
an interesting description of recent research into brain function, the
article says that Professor Marian Diamond and her husband, UCLA
psychiatrist Arnold Scheibel, while teaching a course at UC Irvine
Extension, indicated that "studies of brain tissue continue to bear
out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently".
In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different. Men
typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the
brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance
isn't marked in women. 'This isn't to say that either is better,'
Diamond says. 'By studying the brain, I've been able to understand
men better.'"
[end of quotations, opinion on]
*******************************************************************
Unfortunately, the article doesn't say if this difference is acquired,
or in-born, or if that subject has been studied. (What do you expect,
it's a *feature* article.) Still, before we get too carried away
assuming that engineering's shortage of women is the result of
discrimination, let's consider the possibility that there might, in
fact, be a difference in brain characteristics. After all, it is
traditionally believed that ability with spatial relationships are
related to engineering and "hard" sciences abilities.
Note that I am *not* saying that all women are lacking this ability,
and all men have more of this ability. Nonetheless, if there was a
*on average* difference in built-in capabilities here, it might
explain the disproportionate maleness of engineering and "hard"
sciences.
While everyone is busy looking for charcoal (for flaming), let me
play amateur anthropologist and suggest a possible cause of the
*possible* difference. For a long time, or at least for a few million
years, it appears that hunting and war has been a primarily male
function, and food gathering/preparation/child-rearing have been
primarily female functions. The biological advantages of spatial
ability for hunting are obvious, since you miss where your spear
or rock goes, and you either go hungry, or get gored by a boar. It
is not implausible to me that over a few thousands generations, the
requirements of hunting might have selected disproportionately towards
males with higher spatial reasoning, over females with higher spatial
reasoning.
****FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T READ CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU LIGHT THE
CHARCOAL, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN: THIS DOES ****NOT***** MEAN THAT NO
WOMAN HAS THESE ABILITIES, OR THAT ALL MEN ARE SUPERIOR IN THIS AREA.
WE ARE DISCUSSING AVERAGES --- JUST LIKE EVERYONE DISCUSSES AVERAGES
WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT DIFFERENCES IN INCOME, AND THE SMALL NUMBER OF
WOMEN IN ENGINEERING. READ BEFORE YOU FLAME! ****
I'm not going to claim that the remarks of Professor Diamond are
absolute truth, or that my suppositions are necessarily correct ---
but think about it before assuming bias, unfairness, and societal
pressure, or at least consider that there may be a intrinsic biological
difference causing *part* of the disparities.
You can't flame me worse than I've already been --- any more heat,
and all my 5.56mm will go off.
Cheryl Stewart
>psychiatrist Arnold Scheibel, while teaching a course at UC Irvine
>Extension, indicated that "studies of brain tissue continue to bear
>out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently".
>In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different. Men
>typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the
>brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance
>isn't marked in women. 'This isn't to say that either is better,'
If you read _Science_ or _Nature_ regularly, Mr. Clayton, you would know
already that more recent studies of brain function do not bear out the
by-now popular way of associating the left brain with intuitive functions
and the right brain with analytical functions. (I wonder where the asymptotic
expansions go?). Furthermore, you would know that brain cells have been
found to be far more flexible in their function and capacity for growth
beyond early childhood. This means that people really do think, and can
train themselves to actually be hardwired for whatever function they find
that they have to do the most of. So your little triumph in finding a
little newspaper article that finds "scientific proof that most women
are unfit to do complex analytical and spatial tasks (i.e tasks that pay
lots of money)" is just a bunch of hogwash, and very closely akin to
the "science" of eugenics that Hitler used to justify his little experiments.
Far be it from me to call you a NAZI, Mr. Cramer.
Cheryl Stewart
--
mcc...@ucla-cs.uucp
(from some popular-press feature article...)
>Extension, indicated t...."studies of brain tissue continue to bear
>out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently".
>In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different. Men
>typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the
>brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance
>
>[end of quotations, opinion on]
>*******************************************************************
>
>Unfortunately, the article doesn't say if this difference is acquired,
>
Rather than postulating that the difference was a genetic trait, as the
quoted poster later does, I find a different explanation more likely.
Recall that a piano student, who starts young and diligently does the usual
exercises every day for years, will develop finger bone structures which
are noticeably different (using X-rays) from those of the normal human.
It is likely, in my uninformed opinion, that the above mentioned differences
in brain center dominance are caused by differences in experience, and that
the brain develops most highly those areas which are most used.
As a test, one could study the exact nature of the differences between the
brain center dominances between men and women, and then see if the same
dominances hold among (1) infants, (2) ghetto inhabitants, who probably
do not know much higher math, (3) engineers of each sex, and (4) peoples of
radically different cultures, with widely disparate knowledge of mathematics.
I claim without proof that in each case, the dominance of analytical and
spatial centers in the brain will be directly related to the actual use
of these centers by the individual. This cannot be explained away by saying
that the people with such dominance decided to take up mathematics,
(Femal engineers would, infants and Bushpeople [sic.] would not.) because
not everyone with these dominant brain centers would necessarily enter
a mathematical field, and so there would be some individuals with the
dominant "analytical" centers who had never heard of geometry, if the traits
were actually inherited. If they were developed, as I claim, there would
be very few such people with high spatial ability but no experience.
If my claim turns out to be true, then it is vital for all parents to make
sure their daughters learn geometry & so forth, because the study would
actually indicate that girls (= immature female people) tend not to learn
math as often and as well as boys.
I also claim without proof that the reason for this difference is cultural.
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: (still) mcc...@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mcc...@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
"To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare)
"I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes
"<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)
Sakthi Subramanian
>that they have to do the most of. So your little triumph in finding a
>little newspaper article that finds "scientific proof that most women
>are unfit to do complex analytical and spatial tasks (i.e tasks that pay
>lots of money)" is just a bunch of hogwash, and very closely akin to
>the "science" of eugenics that Hitler used to justify his little experiments.
>
>Far be it from me to call you a NAZI, Mr. Cramer.
>
> Cheryl Stewart
I am referring to the words "little triumph" right on the first line.
It is one thing to fight for women's rights but entirely quite
another to pick on everything done by men and analyze them for
sexist content. Mr. Cramer in this case was probably merely trying
to point out another aspect of the problem, so he presented an article
that he had seen. To conclude that he considered that a "little triumph"
is to allow feminism to upset one's sense of judgement.
sakthi
Mitchell Marks
Message-ID: <22...@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 12:24:06 CDT
exchange? That is, Cramer has been quite prolific in this newsgroup,
and Stewart's view of his item was presumably based not on that one
posting alone but also on a familiarity with the stands Cramer has
been taking all along. It's fair to use this background as the basis
for reading between the lines and making a supposition about his underlying
point in posting that clipping.
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
dawn friedman
> time to give some of reason to hate me even more.
>
> The article is titled "What Einstein's brain teaches us", and along with
> an interesting description of recent research into brain function, the
> article says that Professor Marian Diamond and her husband, UCLA
> psychiatrist Arnold Scheibel, while teaching a course at UC Irvine
> Extension, indicated that "studies of brain tissue continue to bear
> out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently".
> In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different. Men
> typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the
> brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance
> isn't marked in women. 'This isn't to say that either is better,'
> Diamond says. 'By studying the brain, I've been able to understand
> men better.'"
>
> [end of quotations, opinion on]
> *******************************************************************
>
> Unfortunately, the article doesn't say if this difference is acquired,
> or in-born, or if that subject has been studied. (What do you expect,
> it's a *feature* article.) Still, before we get too carried away
> assuming that engineering's shortage of women is the result of
> discrimination, let's consider the possibility that there might, in
> fact, be a difference in brain characteristics. After all, it is
> traditionally believed that ability with spatial relationships are
> related to engineering and "hard" sciences abilities.
>
>
(various sensible qualifications on broadness of statement follow)
(and now the usual "amateur anthropologist"'s explanation of this
often surmised difference: need for extra ability with spatial
relations in male hunters/warriors (( compared with the lesser
need for such in mere berry-picking, or perhaps just the less
serious disadvantages of missing a whole gnu as opposed to just
one banana? :-) )) )
(and here I thought I would be more concise! Sorry!)
(and a final bout of flame-retardant spraying, and that's all)
All right, down to business. I'm not a flamer anyway. In fact,
what I want to say might be interpreted as an attempt to hold down
the heat. Or maybe not. In any case, I recommend caution. Let's
not be in a great big hurry to deal with this study and its conclusions.
First of all, I disagree with the chain of reasoning so lightly
linked by the researchers.
1) Is it clear that spatial relations are the function of the cells
or cell groups mentioned? I doubt that we have so good a map of such
high level functions: we have a decent idea of where tastes are
processed, and we know a good bit about heartbeat, but what can
we say about something like memory, which seems to be all over the
place?
2) The extent of differences between the hemispheres in general is
just at the beginning of what looks to be a long debate. A lot
of simplistic conclusions based on preliminary studies (the severed
corpus callosum, of course) are being challenged, either with
regard to their own conclusions about the subjects or (especially)
about their application to people in whom the connection between the
hemispheres is healthy and operative. It is certainly known that
the hemispheres can and will take over for each other if one is
damaged -- although perhaps not in all cases or functions.
MORE DATA IS NEEDED!
3) In fact, how much do we know about the relationship of relative
(let's not even think about absolute) differences in size OR number
of brain cells to differing powers or functions? It's not my area,
but I think we're a long way from quantitative analysis here.
4) Do we (or at least males) have better spatial abilities than
our cousins who still eat (mostly) fruit? Are our spatial relations
cells (if such things really exist) larger? What about our possible
REDUCTION in need for (3D) spatial relations abilities since giving
up the trees? (These last points apply to the "anthropologist"
argument, but it is such a familiar argument that it might as well
be addressed here.)
I think I'll give it a rest around here, though I could certainly
continue, and end by mentioning what I think may be the most important
point in regard to this and other studies which purport to find a
social/political/psychological conjecture verified by biology:
Science is done by human beings. Human beings have hopes, fears,
and beliefs which are very important to them. And all scientific
data must pass at least once through a human mind. I am NOT
making any accusations, criticisms or complaints about the people
who did this particular study. I'm certainly no more objective than
anyone else picked at random. But it is simply amazing what the
ideas in someone's mind can do to the data that pass through it.
I've seen it in my own field (theoretical chemistry) and in my own
mind, but an example that may be more relevant here (as being from
anthropology as well) is the way that scientists who wanted to
believe in Piltdown Man managed to see things that weren't there to
make it more plausible. Brilliant and respected men saw human
characteristics in the jaw later proved to be an orangutan's, and
described the skull as 'the most simian in character ever seen' when
it was a perfectly modern human skull (how insulting to the ex-owner!)
I'm following Stephen Jay Gould's discussion for this one (I think
it's in _Ever Since Darwin_).
So, anyway, let's not get all het up until a LOT more is known about
some of the aspects of brain structure, the human mind, and human
evolution that I've mentioned? It's not worth the trouble.
dsf
(Dina Ansieri, the
Long-Winded)
p.s. All right, ONE more point: how important is some indefinite
difference which may exist between the average (or median, better)
male and the median female? I'm against any censorship of scientific
research, but who needs to know? No one is going to hire the median
female for some job; all you need to know is whether that PERSON is
qualified. As for the argument that this difference may explain
differences in employment in engineering, etc. : get serious! There
are only about ten factors which have already been implicated, every
one of them on the basis of stronger and more plentiful data. I'll
worry about a differential average ability in spatial relations when
those have been eliminated, and the lag time run as well -- about
50 to 100 years from now, with hard work and good luck!
dsf
(Shacharah, the
Only Flamer)
Michael Lonetto
> > The article is titled "What Einstein's brain teaches us", and along with
> > psychiatrist Arnold Scheibel, while teaching a course at UC Irvine
> > Extension, indicated that "studies of brain tissue continue to bear
> > out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently".
> > In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different. Men
> > typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the
> > brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance
> > isn't marked in women. 'This isn't to say that either is better,'
> > Diamond says. 'By studying the brain, I've been able to understand
> > men better.'"
Anyone who takes a NEUROBIOLOGIST studying human beings seriously is not
familiar with the promising but still PRIMITIVE nature of neurtobiology
as applied to animals
--
____________________
Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute,
455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016
(allegra!phri!lonetto)
"BUY ART, NOT COCAINE"
Clayton Cramer
that it was certain. I raised the issue because it is apparently not a
clear-cut issue. Also, your quote marks around "scientific proof.." suggest
I said this. I did not. In addition, I did not suggest that ANY action
is necessary, or even appropriate.
> Far be it from me to call you a NAZI, Mr. Cramer.
>
> Cheryl Stewart
> --
Your anger and hatred is overwhelming. I really wish you would try to
resolve your emotional problems; you seem unable to have a calm discussion
on this topic.