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.

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.