The Harvard President who posited that there are more men in science because of innate sexual differences in cognitive ability

I'd say at the very least that there's no academic consensus on the issue. It's a fact that male and female brains are wired up differently. How determining this is with things like scientific/mathematical ability is another issue, although there have been huge numbers of studies researching into gender difference in spatial recognition etc. I'd say that it's a pretty open-ended issue at the moment scientifically speaking.

"b) if this had been a race issue there would be more uproar"

For sure, but the arguments wouldn't have been analogous, since probably no neurologists argue that there are real, significant differences between the races in brain anatomy. The same is patently not the case between genders.

All this is a bit beside the point though, which is that there is a resonable debate going on that is in some quarters being stifled for ideological and not sound scientific reasons, and I find that a bit worrying.

Yeah, but it's not a race issue. That would be stupid. He's a scientist, and he knows already that there are proven differences between male and female brains. There's no difference in overall intelligence, but men seem to have more raw processing power, while women seem to have more of the connections that make the processing work. How that translates into his theory, I don't know.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112570/

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0752846191/qid=1106579440/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-0916753-1574854

and many similar others.

It's a horribly thorny issue.

If the statement is false, it would be good to have it proved false and for society to be able to draw on the potential work of a wider network of female scientists.

If it is proved true, then there's also the arguement that science and maths have always been accorded a high status because they are male areas. I mentioned maths particularly there, becaue in its pure form it has no immeadiate practical application.

But then, for centuries, literature was considered a solely male preserve. And what about politics and diplomacy? Surely they are as important to society as scientific breakthroughs? And, if female brains work in the way suguested, these areas should be female dominated and are not.

But the process of attempting to prove or disprove the statement could lead to reinforcing of gender stereotypes, especially as the debate is simplified and boiled down to lay persons terms. But then it seems just as troubling to hinder reasearch and exploration into who we are and how we behave (and I use we to mean people, not women) for political reasons.

The reason this has come in for criticism is because it's seen as negative towards women and not positive, nothing more. Should that immediately mean it's dismissed?

He's an economist, you know, the dismal science. Larry Summers, what a fun-lovin' guy.

For example, it is observable that South America has provided a miserably small share of Nobel Prize winning scientists, even considered on a per capita basis, and even if you limit your observation only to populations who hold university degrees. Would anyone care to theorize that this is due to some genetically-linked inability of South Americans to think scientifically, compared to North Americans?

It is observable that aboriginal populations everywhere have demonstrated a profound ability to distinguish and classify native plants, but are often innumerate and have absolutely no scientific ideas of chemistry, physics or astronomy. Does this suggest a genetically-linked talent for botany among aboriginals that is essentially missing among, say, nuclear physicists?

A statistical analysis of populations and how they correlate to various demonstrated talents would undoubtedly be very amusing, if you tried to account for all of the anomalies through genetic differences. By the time you were done, you'd have to hypothesize genes for bowling, beer drinking and thumb-wrestling.

But, I will say that this theory does wonders for justifying the status quo. It was destiny.

xpost

Aimless, you're way off-base.

Nobody would argue this because, as was explicitly stated in the Slate article, the genetic differences between races and cultures are dwarfed by the genetic differences between the sexes.

BOYS LIKE PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY AND BLOWING THINGS UP AND STUFF.

?

On the other side of the question, if we gave girls the toys we give boys and raised them similarly I think the differences in aptitude would sort themselves out.

/my two cents

A lot of the point of the conference at which Summers was speaking was that women are underrepresented in those hiring pools as well as on those faculties. Noting that there are more men than women who are better at certain things RIGHT NOW (and "better at" follows from "more interested in") is nowhere near saying "why would you want to be a physicist, you're a girl!" etc. But it's also not an excuse for a crappy record of hiring qualified women candidates, which is part of what drives the socialization that changes the curve.

No, Aimless's point is that our current approach to race involves a certain faith that differences in outcome rarely indicate differences in ability, despite the recurring scientific knee-jerk to claim so. Apply that same faith and model to differences in sex-outcome, and the likelihood -- no matter what the genetics -- would be that the same is true once again: that it's socialization factors, and not the knee-jerk of "ability," that are in play. Which is just to say that the models of thinking here aren't in the least consistent or even necessarily coherent, for a variety of reasons.

Generally, for various physiological reasons, men are faster runners than women. However in both sexes there is a continuum of good runners and bad runners, so that there are many women who can run faster than most men.

Similarly, maybe men are generally better at ?maths? than women but there are still many women who can cogitate better than most men.

So it doesn't matter what the 'average' woman is like at science, what matters is what the specific woman who you are teaching or asking for advice is like at science.

Further, science is a huge crazy playing ground of swings and roundabouts; what you gain by being good at maths you lose by being crap at writing coherently or whatever. It is way too complicated a set of disciplines for success to be determined by a simple genetic factor.

Nabisco, that's exactly what I said. Nobody would claim (as per Aimless' post) that there's a *genetic* deficiency in South Americans when it comes to scientific thinking because the *genetic* differences between South Americans and North Americans are extremely small.

However, the genetic differences between men and women are *not* extremely small. The slate article said it was a ~ 1% difference, but it's not at all obvious how that 1% manifests itself when it comes to science (or literature or heart disease or ... ), or whether or not socialization factors are more significant than that 1%. It's a problem worth studying.

I'll repeat what I wrote, Barry, because you've misunderstood. Genetics aside, our current model with race tends to be that vast differences in outcome are a result of socialization and culture -- not ability. We've decided this despite hundreds of years of science and pseudo-science leaping toward differences in ability as the obvious issue. So if our existing models tend to indicate that socialization, rather than ability, is what has such profound effects on outcome, it stands to reason that in this case it's still socialization -- and not genetic variation -- that accounts for similar disparities in outcome. Which may be wrong, but the point is that such would be the consistent, coherent, application of our existing knowledge.

As far as I'm aware, the majority of research on this (based on identical twins raised by different families etc.) points to genetics being more important than family. Not the only thing of importance, but more important.

Well, it should be pretty clear from looking at the biological evidence whether any perceived structural differences in the brain are the result of conditioning or genetics. I mean you could study the brains of newborns for instance. There are limits to what conditioning can achieve. For instance, regular exercise can increase the capacity of the lungs, but it won't allow you to grow an extra lung. The number of lungs we have is genetically wired.

As for the race issue, I think if you read the Slate article, you'll see it's a red herring, since the amount of genetic difference between the sexes is orders of magnitude larger than the variation between races.

No, I think I understood you the first time.

our current model with race tends to be that vast differences in outcome are a result of socialization and culture -- not ability

Absolutely. And now, with more recent understandings in DNA and gene sequencing, this statment can be backed up with some hard data, i.e. miniscule differences between the DNA of people from different cultures and races.

The same type of analysis shows that male and female DNA differs by 1-2 %, compared to 0.01 % difference between races. A factor of 100-200 disparity isn't small. So, socialization factors definitely overcome a 0.01% DNA difference, but can they overcome a 1-2% DNA difference? And if so, to what degree? For instance, socialization factors do nothing to explain the myriad of health disparities between the sexes (I'm talking about heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc.).

Sorry, this was stated badly ... obviously socialization factors can overcome a 1-2% DNA disparity, the real question is "to what degree does this happen"?

(1) Old race model: DIFFERENT OUTCOMES

(1) Old race model: DIFFERENT OUTCOMES

Good lord, you're still arguing with something from miles ago; I can't tell if nobody's reading carefully or if you're just obsessed with genes. I'm talking about models, for Christ's sake. Lookit:

(1) Old race model: DIFFERENT OUTCOMES -stem from- GENES / ABILITY
(2) Current race model: DIFFERENT OUTCOMES -stem from- SOCIALIZATION
(3) Coherent sex model: DIFFERENT OUTCOMES -stem from- SOCIALIZATION TOO, maybe
(4) Your sex model: DIFFERENT OUTCOMES -stem from- "We were wrong about race but dude I'm gonna guess this time it really is genes! There's actually a difference this time!"

Is that linear algebra?

that is most certainly where I draw the line, mister.

I mean, in other words, you're focusing on a genetic difference and just assuming with bold genes-are-everything faith that this is probably the determining factor in different outcomes -- despite empirical evidence that the same exact types of varying outcomes are created by social and cultural factors!

-- Casuistry (chri...), January 24th, 2005. (Chris Piuma)

I DON'T AGREE AT ALL!

Nabisco, you've mischaracterized my argument.

Your (3) and (4) are the same, btw. Different outcomes stem from socialization AND genetics. I'm not "guessing" that this time it really is the genes, I'm saying that just because a 0.01% DNA difference between races amounts to nothing when compared with socialization factors *does not mean* that a 1-2% DNA difference ALSO amounts to nothing when compared with socialization factors.

You assumed the opposite in this statement:

So if our existing models tend to indicate that socialization, rather than ability, is what has such profound effects on outcome, it stands to reason that in this case it's still socialization -- and not genetic variation -- that accounts for similar disparities in outcome.

i.e. you're saying that the 1-2% difference between sexes is unimportant because we've shown that is unimportant with regard to the 0.01% between races.

I wouldn't want to draw conclusions about life outcomes even if we knew the exact levels of influence of environment and heredity. But I'm pretty sure those outcomes can't be attributed only to one and not the other.

I think Nabisco is making good points. If we have evidence that social conditioning can cause differences in outcome as great as those we are seeing between the sexes, then there isn't any reason to start reaching for a genetic explanation just yet.

Okay, now I'm REALLY going home.

Hello?

http://www.impawards.com/1983/posters/trading_places.jpg

http://virginislands.islandmovies.net/TradingPlaces/trading-poster2.jpg

O.Nate says what I'm trying to say much more simply and cleanly.

The fact that we have women scientists at all--and we do--says that women DO have the same ability to master the material required to be a scientist.

COME ON!

We're barely scratching the surface in our understanding of the genetic differences between the sexes -- obviously they are there, and I'm 1000X more interested in learning how those differences affect the incidences and treatments of heart disease than I am in reading a study like the one Prof. Summers seems to be interested in. However, I'm not willing to dismiss his ideas completely.

(But anyway this all beginning to boil down to how much each of us "believes" in genes, so there you have it.)

Me and Mrs. vague are both strongly liberal, have both worked with young children and understand the possibilities of environment introducing gender bias. To the best of our abilities, we've tried to bring our children up in the same way. Our 3 year old daughter, though, insists on having a tremendous liking for the colour pink and for Barbie. She does play differently to how our son did at the same age - she is role-playing with toys much earlier. Scientifically this means nothing, I'm the first to admit it. But it fascinates and puzzles us how she could be so determinedly "girlie", for want of a better word.

Also, Barbie movies are baaaaaad.

"I wish they taught shopping in school!"

MindInRewind: Nobody would argue this because, as was explicitly stated in the Slate article, the genetic differences between races and cultures are dwarfed by the genetic differences between the sexes.

Except, the exact equivalent to this was argued in the past by fairly reputable scientists and continues to be argued today by people who accept some basic theories that are now identified as racist. Funny thing, these people do have evidence to argue from. It is just shitty evidence that shouldn't convince anyone.

The very fact that a man's and woman's genetic material differ by 1% cannot at present be connected to their innate scientific ability in any way, shape or form - except by examining statistical evidence of the sort I alluded to above. That evidence is hugely lame for the reasons I cited above. So, unless some better evidence is produced, this theory has no sound basis in fact apart from such shitty evidence as is used by racists in another context.

The problem with such a hypothesis is not that they are proposed, but that they take on a life of their own and are believed in the complete absence of evidence or investigation. It exactly mimics the inherent bias in society, so presenting it as a 'hypothesis' is disingenuous. It is merely an echo of a baseless belief.

If Mr. Harvard President Whatisname wants to get into the lab and look for the evidence, he is welcome to devote his life to it for all I care. But since he certainly has no intention of doing so, his proposal is highly irresponsible merde du cheval and should be identified as such.

Give me something better than "men's and women's genes differ by 1%" and I'll rethink my position. Until then, no way.

Except, the exact equivalent to this was argued in the past by fairly reputable scientists and continues to be argued today by people who accept some basic theories that are now identified as racist.

The exact equivalent of "the earth is flat" was also argued in the past by fairly reputable scientists (at the time). These people also had evidence to argue from. What was argued in the past and was thought to be correct back then has nothing to do with what is understood now.

The very fact that a man's and woman's genetic material differ by 1% cannot at present be connected to their innate scientific ability in any way, shape or form

Key words = "at present". You also have no idea how significant that 1% is, you're dismissing it because in your mind, 1% seems too small too matter. That proves nothing.

The problem with such a hypothesis is not that they are proposed, but that they take on a life of their own and are believed in the complete absence of evidence or investigation.

Good thing we have you to decide what is acceptable science and what is not. We wouldn't want people to be free to speak their minds on things lest certain ideas take on a life of their own. Oh well, there goes 95% of all political threads on ILX.

If Mr. Harvard President Whatisname wants to get into the lab and look for the evidence, he is welcome to devote his life to it for all I care. But since he certainly has no intention of doing so, his proposal is highly irresponsible merde du cheval and should be identified as such.

Gotta love the super-weak "if you're so smart, why don't you do it yourself" rebuttal. Which also proves nothing.

Basically, you don't have a clue how significant that 1-2% is. Based on the currently massive field of mens health vs women's health issues (the differences of which cannot be explained via social considerations in any way, shape or form), I'd say that it's a far more significant 1-2% than you think. But does it affect scientific ability? I don't have a clue. But I know that just as science cannot presently prove that such an effect exists, it also cannot disprove it based on what we presently know.

What makes you say that? Chimpanzees differ from humans by 4%. I know that 1% is a quite signifigant number.

does it affect scientific ability? I don't have a clue.

Of course you don't. Nor does the president of Harvard. My point is that a useful hypothesis is a hypothesis that gets investigated. This "hypothesis" was not proposed as a starting point for investigation, because the proposer of it has no ability or interest to investigate it.

No doubt other scientists are at work doing the investigations required to answer this question. You won't find them arsing around in public speculating about it. They will speak when they have facts. That's the exact opposite of what this fellow is doing, which is why it is horseshit.

Then how can you follow that up by saying that it's not a useful hypothesis to investigate based on that 1-2% difference?

No doubt other scientists are at work doing the investigations required to answer this question. You won't find them arsing around in public speculating about it.

Agreed. However, that's not what you originally wrote, which was (paraphrased) "since he's not planning to investigate this himself, then his whole premise is crap and isn't worth studying".

Maybe you'd better go back and have a second look.

I'm not trying hard enough, then.

~

"since he's not planning to investigate this himself, then his whole premise is crap and isn't worth studying"

A scientific hypothesis is merely a step in a process that leads to the gathering and weighing of evidence and its presentation before one's peers in the scientific community. Study is a necessary and useful part of the process.

Idle speculation is at best a sterile exercise. When the President of Harvard speculates in public on the innate ability of various people to learn, it bears no resemblance to a scientific hypothesis. Morevoer, his position as a leader lends an undue weight to his words that make this particular exercise in idle speculation wholly irresponsible. Lacking evidence or the wherewithal to produce evidence to back up his speculations makes them horseshit.

But it is fine to study the question.

Obviously, this question is a proxy for something else; it's hardly the first time science or pseudo-science has been used to advance a social/political agenda. That doesn't mean the question isn't valid and important.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that significant structural differences in the brain have no effect at all on statistical differences in behaviour. That runs counter to a lot of what we already know about chemically-induced neurological differences (ie, pump someone up with testosterone, and their behaviour changes in fairly predictable ways). That said, the effect is no doubt deeply interwoven into the cultural space and may be negligible or non-existent in the environment of university science departments, where a whole range of culture-specific dispositions and abilities come into play.

ITS NOT A TUMAHAAAAAHHHH

ihttp://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004011466_Display-25.gif

the outcome of one study

LHS: No, to mean only the additional [unintelligible].

This totally made me think of evolution.

though: perhaps buying into this image and its attendant problems is actually a NECESSARY quality for the president of harvard (or yale or whatever) university, since the maintenance of harvard's self-image and projection as the center of the intellectual universe is probably quite critical to its continually renewing its assets, attracting faculty. just as they probably encourage more people to apply as they really should, simply to keep acceptance rates looking impressively low.

The UCI/Iowa State data has no bearing on the issue at hand. They found no correlations between their measured brain activity and scientific aptitude in either men or women. In other words, Glucose Metabolic Rates have nothing to do with scientific aptitude.

Yeah, that was also bizarre. He somehow assumes that all of the highest aptitude math and science people end up working in academia.

Oh man.

link?

here's somewhere to start: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/28/4222d6a8c1874

Starting a thread about that would surely result in ILX eating itself whole.

How male/female is your brain test. Takes a long time but you can do it in stages and come back to it.

Overall, I have an exactly averagely male brain. Interesting points though:

- I am astonishingly bad at the 'spot the moved objects' Kim's game test. I spotted two (or was it four?) movements right but misidentified two as well. Anyway, my % score at the end was deemed to be 0%, next to an average of 39% for men and 46% for women. My visual memory is err... far from photographic.

- I am much better than I thought at the rotate the objects game. I got all ten of the ones I did right. Unfortunately, I miscounted how many there were to come (it's timed) so ran out of time before I could pick the last two. Still, 10/12. Apparently a third of all men get 12/12 though.

- My empathising score was 12/20, higher than the average for either men or women. My systemising score was 7/20, lower than the average for either. So I guess I don't have Asperger's. Mind you, that was all based on self-report questions. When it came to actually judging people's emotions from their eyes, I was pretty much average (6/10).

- My index finger is significantly longer than my ring finger (80mm vs. 74mm), when most people's, and especially men's, are the other way around. I had never realised this.

Aren't I fascinating?

I initially read that as 'pornographic'

I scored very low on both systemising (6) and empathy (8). Almost everything else said I had a balanced male-female brain, except the eyes thing which I was great at (9/10).

The one that is really troubling me though is the verbal fluency. [test spoilers deleted --mod]

(I put in a mod request, about my accidental test-spoiling)

In the explanation of the words bit, it states "we are assuming that all the words you entered are correct". So if you'd just typed a bunch of gibberish with the odd comma thrown in, you'd have got the same as someone who thought carefully about it?

Angles test: 19 / 20. Better than most men or women. Not because I'm "good at maths" but because I can judge what's parallel by eye.
Spot the difference: a rather mediocre 36%, worse than average for men and women.
Handedness: although I'm right-handed, the left thumb lay on top which suggests right brain dominance. "May be better fighter or artist".
Empathizing: 1/20. Systematizing: 3/20. Here I'm weirdly low, neither male nor female but some sort of gray, apparently, from a completely different planet.
Eyes: Everybody looked vain to me, not "aghast". I debate the whole concept of there being "right answers" to this question, when the photos are crappy old C&A underwear models. Which probably explained why I scored a mediocre 5, which makes me "balanced", apparently.
The hands thing was weird, my right hand has a female ratio, my left hand a male one.
Faces: I prefer more feminine faces.
3D shapes: 8/12, ambisextrous.
Words: 11 words for [deleted], 8 for [deleted]. The averages and the interpretations are totally different here, with the interpretation saying I'm female for this score, but the average suggesting maleness. But it may be that the type of people likely to do this kind of quiz online are more "girly men" than experimental subjects picked at random.
Ultimatum: I could only answer £25 here, being a socialist. Which makes me female and Japanese, apparently. (No surprise there.)

i'm a maaan, baby. but i'm also attracted to men with masculine faces, so sez this test. i wonder what kind of women i'd have picked if i'd chosen the "female" option.

To be honest, I took half the parts of the test half-heartedly. I had no interest in finding words that go with "[deleted]" because [deleted] is an insipid word.

I think I fuck up these tests on purpose.

The right side of your brain is said to control your visual, spatial and intuitive processes.

I call bullshit. This has nothing to do with left/right brain dominance. It's actually a completely independent trait--left thumb on top = dominant allele, right thumb on top = recessive allele.

Angles- 14/20 ambisexual-- I thought I'd do way better at this.
Spot the diff- 21% "male"-- I am hyperaware of this trait/deficiency, as I utterly loathe going into the pantry or store to find specific items--I can't separate and identify that many things at once. Interestingly to me, I correctly identified 3 moved objects, but misidentified none, so I was bad at it by volume, but 100% correct.
Left-thumb on top- I agree, wtf bullshit
Empathizing- 9/20 slightly "male"
Systematizing- 16/20 "male?"
Eyes- 7/10 "female?"- I think this is more reflective of insecurity, due to which I'm always trying to figure out what people are thinking of me. How is this female if the historical responses for men and women are the same??
Fingers- exactly 1.0 R and 1.0 L- "female" and yes, brotherless
Faces- Feminine preference.
Shapes- 12/12 "male", but not an engineer, tho family all tell me I should have done that-- but I suck at math.
Words- 13 total "female"
Ultimatum- Hah, I would never ask for more than 25 or accept less than 25. They should have made the stakes way higher to create a sense of urgency--either- you're kid is starving, or make the amount 100 times more, that might have changed my response. I used to be in investments and had I chosen to stay in the profession I am confident that I would have pursued education in behavioral finance, which fascinates me. Anyway, "female?"

I don't know how that adds up to 50 male, I seem pretty down with the estrogen.

Did you understand the scenario, Cathy? Are you saying £25 is the only amount to offer? If you were the one being offered the money, would you decline anything less than £25, just to spite the other person?

The results section at the end seemed to suggest that usually, men tend to offer around £18 of the £50, women around £20. Though as I say, the actual averages from the people who've taken the BBC test don't reflect this.

i got 25% male btw.

She thinks it's tasty
Me thinks it's hasty
Take me to a chorus now

Tell me what to do if it all falls through
Can you point me a direction I can take my shoes?
What did I do to you to make you feel so blue?
I get the impression that we're overdue
I got the lunar madness
And it's coming straight to you

Table tennis rules
They're so confusing it's not played by fools
And with my tank filled to the brim
You may suggest to me anything

Phone me, page me
Fax me 'til I'm silly
Answer me today

Tell me what to do if it all falls through
Can you point me a direction I can take my shoes?
What did I do to you to make you feel so blue?
I get the impression that we're overdue
You're my little terror
Oh won't you tell me something new?

Maybe you think I'm shady
But I sing your language baby
(Ba ba ba ba ba ba
Oooooh)

What did I do to you to make you feel so blue?
I get the impression that we're overdue (X2)
What did I do to you?

Now that you're here tell me you're a non-believer
Oh! Oh! Oh! (X9)

If I were the other person, I think I'd cut my nose off to spite my face if they offered less than... £20.

i'm good at rotating 3d shapes, colors, and synonyms.

I was much worse than I thought I'd be at the moved objects one and the synonyms, the timed factor puts me off though. I was good at angles!

In the empathising/systemising tests I always come out as some kind of freakish uber-woman, though.

Arch, I found myself rating those faces on which ones looked less like stupid farm boys and had less horrible eyebrows/no monobrow, but I think it's very difficult to come up with composite faces that could be said to project one central quality over a host of other unrelated things so there's no telling.

I got nearly all the 'move the shape' q's, which was odd as i'm neither 1) a technician 2) trying all that hard there.

I also offered £25, but on reflection I guess the other person, faced with getting nothing, would say settle for £23 if the alternate was getting nowt. But getting offered £10, say, the other person would hit the "fuck off!!" point.