Clarify for me....

[Friday]

...how being a woman makes one less able to become a scientist or engineer?

I'm willing to listen. Barely....

http://iwf.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=865

 

[Number_6]

I think that article pretty much spells it out for you.

You need to learn to accept facts that you don't like. And to understand that none of this means that women should be kept from pursuing a career in these fields; no one is arguing that. It does, however, often mean that women, of their own free will, are less likely to want to pursue a career in these fields.

There are differences in brain structure and development between men and women, though, as the article points out, we are talking about 60% of men and 60% of women.

Look at this board. Look at yourself. How many women on this board know how their computer operates? How many are even interested?

Well, someone decided to ask the question, "Why is this the case?" And rather than immediately blaming it on nuture, decided to see whether or not nature provided any answers. And it does.

Does that mean that women are incapable of learning how their computers operate? Certainly not. It might mean, though, that 60% of them will have a more difficult time learning how they operate. They might need to be taught in a different manner.

So rather than running in fear from studies such as these, and rather than reacting in anger and blindly refuting scientific facts, it would behoove feminists to acknowledge such facts and then perhaps push for alternative teaching methods in the sciences and in engineering.

And to quit screaming about why women are "underrepresented" in those fields. Because the one big reason why there aren't as many women in those fields is because female undergrads don't choose to go into them.

 

[Friday]

"Male brain" vs "female brain"? I think someone has viewed Spock's Brain one too many times.

Nurture. Simple as that. Girls are not encouraged to pursue the disciplines needed to be sucessful in these fields.

http://www.eweek.org/site/News/Eweek/introducing.shtml

Too often, however, young women interested in engineering lack enough math courses to go into engineering upon entering college. For the engineering community, giving girls the option of becoming engineers is akin to fighting an often unrecognized bias. Most parents, for example, reject the notion that their daughters don't have the right to become an engineer or doctor, architect, programmer, accountant or medical technician, but few realize it usually takes three years of math in high school to enter into any of those fields of study in college. Without the educational background, the right to enter those fields is effectively denied.

Not only do many girls lack encouragement to pursue math and science, some parents and other influential adults unwittingly discourage girls with such remarks as "I never could do math" or "I always hated math when I was a child." Girls good in math may also worry about stereotypes that portray them as oddballs. One of the top ten reasons there aren't more women engineers, aeronautical engineer and former Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall once remarked, is because of concern "that they won't get a date to the prom if they get the highest math score." Finally, while boys who are good in math are commonly steered toward careers in engineering, science or technology, girls who excel in math are often advised to become teachers -- a worthy career option, to be sure, but only one of many.

Once the gender biases are overcome, the pendulum will start swinging the other way, I'm sure.

 

[Morrhigan]

There are definitely differences between how male and female brains work. Pointing that out is not sexist. However, the assumption that one model is inherently better than the other is sexist.

 

[Hambil]

Hey, this is good hard science. Women can't do math. It's not junk science like that evolution crap, or global warming.

 

[SilentBtViolent]

I think this is kind of a red herring. Personal variation is more important than sexual variation, if someone were to look at the real facts somehow.

Like, I have two boys and a girl. I would say that in terms of their inclinations and inherent skills, my eldest son and my daughter have more in common than my younger son and daughter.

(The eldest boy and daughter are very strongly language-oriented, our younger son is very spatially oriented. In fact he has to find his older brother's toys for him and build every building / fort / puzzle they try to do together.)

 

[WordInterrupted]

This is the really stupid part:

Lawrence’s article advised biologists to change their criteria for handing out grants and promotions to accommodate male-female differences, so that women’s superior “people” skills, which, for instance, may make them better project managers, would be rewarded along with the aggression and obsessive focus of men, which, for instance, may make them better bench scientists and salesmen.

Even if one grants that men and women as groups have different aptittudes, it's ridiculous to suggest that one should use group averages to make individual personel decisions. Grants and job assignments should be handed out based on the characteristics and abilities of individuals, not on broad generalizations.

 

[Number_6]

This is the really stupid part:



Even if one grants that men and women as groups have different aptittudes, it's ridiculous to suggest that one should use group averages to make individual personel decisions. Grants and job assignments should be handed out based on the characteristics and abilities of individuals, not on broad generalizations.

I can certainly agree with that, and I don't agree with everything the article argues. People should be judged according to their own merits. That's why I think affirmative action is such a crock of shit.

I do, however, agree with the basic scientific facts, and the numbers sound about right, given the number of college students I've taught and the majors they've chosen to pursue.

There is, of course, plenty of individual variation, and anyone who bothered to read the whole article would have seen that the numbers allow for that. If the male population consists of 60% men with "male" brains, 20% with "mixed" brains, and 20% with "female" brains, and the reverse holds true for the female population, then there is significant variation within each gender.

However, that still means that there is an 80% chance that a man is going to be skilled in the so-called "masculine" areas and only a 40% chance that a woman will be. And the reverse also holds true.

The idea that it's all nuture is horseshit, and the article that Friday quotes is only contributing to the problem. My wife and her sister, for example, are the daughters of a scientist. He more than encouraged them to pursue math and science, but neither was interested or showed any aptitude for it. His sons, however, did, and followed in their father's footsteps.

You have science on one hand, and hearsay on the other. "Most parents." What a fucking laugh. Let's see how that statement was statistically derived.

 

[Number_6]

There are definitely differences between how male and female brains work. Pointing that out is not sexist. However, the assumption that one model is inherently better than the other is sexist.

What's so amusing about this statement is that it is then gender feminism which is sexist, because the arguments of gender feminism are predicated on the assumption that the masculine way of thinking is better. That's why any studies indicating that women think differently from men garner such wild reactions.

 

[Friday]

Women are not wired differently than men, in respect to math and science. The personal example you cited is specific, not general, Number_6. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove your point of nature over nurture in the broad spectrum.

It's a gender stereotype. One that needs to be dispelled in order for things to change. And my article contributes to what, exactly? You're just trying to discredit that source because it's not one that backs up your claim.

 

[Number_6]

You are free to believe whatever you want. Scientific studies indicate otherwise.

Find some articles on cognitive neuroscience or on evolutionary psychology. Both fields have made some remarkable advances in knowledge in the course of the last few decades, all of which are calling the Standard Social Sciences Model into question.

And what your article contributes to is the notion that all we need to do is change our attitudes and everything will magically change. Well, guess what? It's not going to magically change for 20% of men and 60% of women, who may need for people like you to set aside your beliefs and address the fact that they are wired differently, and that they may need a completely different approach if they are to succeed in math and science.

You're a teacher. Shouldn't you be interested in studies that may indicate you need to change your approach in order to be successful with your students?

 

[WordInterrupted]

I can certainly agree with that, and I don't agree with everything the article argues. People should be judged according to their own merits. That's why I think affirmative action is such a crock of shit.

Affirmative action does judge people on their own merits. It judges whether they can bring diversity to an institution. You may not agree with the goal of diversity, but that's another discussion.

If the male population consists of 60% men with "male" brains, 20% with "mixed" brains, and 20% with "female" brains, and the reverse holds true for the female population, then there is significant variation within each gender.

What's "significant?" Almost all psychological studies of gender difference show that differences are much less significant than people generally believe.

The idea that it's all nuture is horseshit, and the article that Friday quotes is only contributing to the problem. My wife and her sister, for example, are the daughters of a scientist. He more than encouraged them to pursue math and science, but neither was interested or showed any aptitude for it. His sons, however, did, and followed in their father's footsteps.

You have science on one hand, and hearsay on the other. "Most parents." What a fucking laugh. Let's see how that statement was statistically derived.

In the first paragraph you relate hearsay as evidence, and in the second paragraph you claim that hearsay isn't evidence. Which is it?

 

[The Question]

Affirmative action does judge people on their own merits. It judges whether they can bring diversity to an institution.

The goal of hiring isn't diversity. The goal of hiring is to put a qualified individual into the open position.

What's "significant?" Almost all psychological studies of gender difference show that differences are much less significant than people generally believe.

This isn't a discussion of psychology; it's a discussion of neurochemistry.

 

[WordInterrupted]

The goal of hiring isn't diversity. The goal of hiring is to put a qualified individual into the open position.

You don't get to decide what the goal of hiring is. Employers set their own goals.

This isn't a discussion of psychology; it's a discussion of neurochemistry.

Can you explain this distinction?

 

[Number_6]

In the first paragraph you relate hearsay as evidence, and in the second paragraph you claim that hearsay isn't evidence. Which is it?

Hearsay isn't evidence.

Providing you with a concrete example is not hearsay. It's not enough to constitute evidence, but it's not hearsay, either. I've given you the particulars. The article gives us "most parents," whatever the fuck that means.

And TQ is correct. We're not talking about psychology hear, at least not the discipline as it exists in the social "sciences." We're talking about neurology.

 

[WordInterrupted]

Hearsay isn't evidence.

Providing you with a concrete example is not hearsay. It's not enough to constitute evidence, but it's not hearsay, either. I've given you the particulars. The article gives us "most parents," whatever the fuck that means.

An unverified anecdote is no more useful than unsupported claims about "most parents."

And TQ is correct. We're not talking about psychology hear, at least not the discipline as it exists in the social "sciences." We're talking about neurology.

Nope. The key piece of evidence in the article is a psychological study of young babies:

However, newborn infants (less than 24 hours old) have been shown a real human face and a mobile of the same size and similar colour. On average, boys looked longer at the mobile and girls looked longer at the face

This reasearch was done by noted Cambridge psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen.

 

[Friday]

Shouldn't you be interested in studies that may indicate you need to change your approach in order to be successful with your students?

In my field, adapting a concept to a student's specific needs is mandatory for effective learning.

That is not what's happening here. I agree that men and women are genetically predisposed to those traits that perpetuate the species. A predisposition to math and science, however, is not included among those traits. I firmly belive it is a case of nurture.

 

[Number_6]

If you look at what the evolutionary psychologists are discovering, then a predisposition to math and science is included among those traits. Hunters, for example, need to have greater spatial aptitude than mothers.

You need to throw off the shackles of the Standard Social Sciences Model. It's flawed.

 

[The Question]

You don't get to decide what the goal of hiring is. Employers set their own goals.

Not under affirmative action, they don't, which is the biggest problem with it.

Can you explain this distinction?

Psychology is an analysis of the brain's performance. Neurology is an analysis of the brain's mechanisms and their functions.

 

[Number_6]

An unverified anecdote is no more useful than unsupported claims about "most parents."



Nope. The key piece of evidence in the article is a psychological study of young babies:



This reasearch was done by noted Cambridge psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen.

I'm verifying it. You can believe me or not, but it is the truth.

As for psychology, what you're talking about is a study that actually used empirical evidence. The psychology that you generally appear to be referring to is the social science crap that starts with an assumption and then systematically discards any and all evidence that doesn't support that assumption in order to be able to claim that their assumption is supported by the evidence.