Harvard Pres Says Females Naturally Bad at Math 1746
Man_Holmes writes "Harvard president says that women lack natural ability in math and science and this explains why fewer women succeed in math and science.
Lawrence H. Summers later said that he was discussing hypotheses based on scholarly work and that it did not necessarily represent his private views."
Doesn't this guy say nearly the same thing? (Score:5, Informative)
The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain [amazon.com].
From the beginning of the book: "The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy. The male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems."
Has anyone read it?
P.S. This guy is a cousin of Ali G. Don't know what that ought to signify
This is getting lots of attention (Score:4, Informative)
The NYTimes has been running this story on their main page for the past day. Story is here [nytimes.com].
Apparently, he made these remarks in an effort to provoke discussion more than to express his beliefs. Or at least that's the spin on it.
Stupid phrasing of the obvious (Score:5, Informative)
He just said the right thing the wrong way... he was apparently trying to "be provocative" according to the same AP article [cnn.com] on CNN.
He also gave an example of what he intended (emphasis mine):That example says "innate difference" to me, but I'd like to see more detail.
Book recommendation (Score:5, Informative)
Her basic premise (backed up by various studies) is that pre-historically, the tasks of men and women drove the evolution of their brains and chemistry (hormones). For example, because men did the hunting, they had to understand spacial relationships better. Because a group of women in a tribe took care of the children together, women had to work better with others and multi-task.
I can't recall specifically, but I think she makes the point that the male mind is (on average, of course) better suited for engineering because of the spacial relationship thing. But, her basic premise is that the directions the world, and even corporate culture, are heading benefit women and we should expect them to lead much more in the future.
This is just an observation on my part-- (Score:3, Informative)
I have found that the ratio of females/males in the UNIX class is about 40/60. In programming, about 45/55. But in networking (we teach the CCNA cirriculum) the first semester starts at about 40/60 but ends up about 10/90 by the fourth term. The women just drop out.
I believe anyone can discipline their minds to do just about anything. But I also believe females are wired differently than males. This is not to say that females are worse (or better) than males; just different. Males seem to want to tackle problems, while females watch and observe and learn. Perhaps it is the curriculum that is oriented for the male student, Idunno.
Re:Sooo stupid. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
(warning: the following is not backed up with links because I can't find the info right now, so mod me down if you want)
In summary, men have fewer, more serious accidents and women have more less serious ones.
While you make good points (Score:4, Informative)
As for the Jewish issue, funniness, and ability to rap, well those obviously fit the rest of your post quite well.
Re:I'd be interested (Score:5, Informative)
I lack links to peer reviewed studies (since most journals rightly fear that the internet will eventually drive them out of business) to back these up, but I can provide a few examples that a quick Googling will verify...
1) Female brains weight roughly 200g less than male brains.
2) Females use both hemispheres of their brains (five separate locii, IIRC) for language tasks, while males use only one hemisphere and (again, IIRC) two locii.
3) Males perform significantly (in the rigid statistical sense) better at 3d spatial orientation tasks than females do.
And, of course, the one that caused this entire argument, 4) Males score DRASTICALLY higher on tests of abstract and symbolic logic (ie, math). I don't even know why that counts as controvertial anymore. That particular horse died so long ago, we can't even beat the carcass, just sort of stir up the dust.
Re:Stupid phrasing of the obvious (Score:3, Informative)
That example says "innate difference" to me, but I'd like to see more detail.
OK, here's some more detail. My three-year-old son does the exact same freaking thing. He also happens to be very bright on the math/techie side, although that is totally irrelevant.
Obviously, this brilliant economist has already made up his mind about gender differences, and is selectively interpreting data to support his conclusion.
"Well, I tried the give-her-a-truck thing, and she fucked that up. OK, sweetie, it's ten years of Barbie's Kitchen Wondeland for you!"
It sounds like you are jumping to conclusions also (Score:1, Informative)
Even this doesn't prove anything. First of all, can you prove that being poor lowers your IQ? And if you can draw the conclusion that poor people have a low IQ, how can you be sure that those who are poor aren't poor because they had a low IQ to begin with? (their parents, their grandparents, etc)
When you say "minorities", you're using a politically correct euphemism. Asians are minorities but their IQ is higher, on average, than white people. And they generally don't stay poor for long, even if they started that way and were subject to discrimination.
You also didn't address studies that show that poor whites and Asians do better on IQ tests and other standardized tests than wealthy black people.
It seems that you are set in your beliefs that Hernstein's results must be wrong because they go against your beliefs of political correctness. Would you ever consider the possibility that there really is a difference in IQ by region, and that those in Africa really do have a lower IQ on average?
My beliefs are always up for revision when I hear a compelling valid argument, but political correctness and other emotionally charged pleas don't constitute a valid argument.
My exp...Re:Regression (Score:3, Informative)
Rewind eight years ago -> married a "career gal" wanted to be a DINKs as both careers were going well. Ended up having a kid, she decides she wants to be a homemaker. I was really unhappy about it and the loss of income. But I figured I was not going to force her to so something she didn't want to.
Today-> well knowing that I had to support a family I have been forced to make smarter career moves, twice being stuck in well-paying jobs I didn't like at all. However, our kids (five and three) are well adjusted, healthy, home is calm, my wife is very happy doing what she does and spending some of my money. But in return she keeps me happy. Realises that I do bust my ass to support them and doesn't hassle me when I want to spend a bit on myself or go out with the guys.
I think I ended up with it pretty good. Will have to see what the future holds.
Nobody said that these people were bad at math. (Score:3, Informative)
I think some people are getting all worked up about this and are giving their emotional outcries. That doesn't say anything- I want to see facts.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
Before a continue, a disclaimer: My partner is both female and a math major, and several of my friends in college were female math majors (or math/cs), so I may be a bit biased on this one.
I don't find this notion to be true at all. I went to a school that was 70-80% male, and yet the math department had an even mix of male and female. If there was any bias, it was on the side of pure science vs. applied science (the women tended to migrate more toward the "pure science" - chemistry as opposed to chemical engineering, things like that). Other schools have found similar things - for example, http://www.math.earlham.edu/WomensBrains.html
Anyways, enough with the anecdotal evidence. Lets get to studies:
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/George_Stre
"n a recent Brown study, women performed as much as 12 percent better on math problems when tested in a setting without men.
Women tested in single-sex groups scored a 70-percent accuracy rate on math exams, while women tested in groups in which they were outnumbered by men achieved only a 58-percent accuracy rate, said Michael Inzlicht, graduate student of psychology, who led the research.
http://www.awm-math.org/articles/notices/199107
(An interesting article about women in mathematics - several interesting tidbits, such as while only 25% of math PhDs are female, only 30% of all PhDs period are female)
http://www.gendercenter.org/education.htm
(This tidbit: "In 1992, women received 52 percent of biological science bachelor's and master's degrees, 67 percent of law bachelor's degrees, 47 percent of business bachelor's degrees, 47 percent of mathematics bachelor's degrees, and 33 percent of physical science bachelor's degrees. (6)" - references "Where Women Stand: An International Report on the Status of Women in 140 Countries 1997-1998" by Naomi Neft and Ann D. Levine.)
In summary: it looks like there are ample women in mathematics at the graduate level; however, at the postgrad level, the numbers drop significantly. However, women don't seek postgraduate degrees nearly as often as men anyways; the ratio of male to female postgraduate degrees in mathematics is only 5% different from the overall average. Such a small difference can easily be attributed to the environment - an environment which Harvard's president made abundantly clear.
Re:the other bit (Score:2, Informative)
Men submit fewer claims than women, on average. However, male claims tend to be more expensive and to involve damage to third parties.
Womens claims tend to be less expensive than men's, and involve more damage to property (lamp posts etc).
The distinguishing factor is that men tend to drive greater distances than women, so if you express both male and female accidents in terms of cost/mile/person ON AVERAGE, its only slightly more expensive to be male.
Bear in mind, thats not the case in the 20-25 year old range, where male accident figures greatly outweigh womens.
Re:Today's Progressive Views (Score:5, Informative)
A few years ago I had occasion to be talking with the leaders of some of the US Electronics Assembly industry locally. I began to ask about the differentials in employment for women in that industry as they totally dominate the assembly lines. The response I got was one which I have looked into in depth since that time and found that these men were correct.
They reported to me substantial differentials in women and men regards work situations. They included that only about 10% of men had the color discrimination capacity of women. Women on average could descriminate well over 10 times the number of colors that men could and this was not related to color blindness. Women had on average 10 times the discrimination for fine detail and these two factors were the reason men were discriminated agianst in electronics assembly. This was also the dominant reason for export of the processes to China etc because it was illegal in the USA to discriminate so.
I am a Registered Nurse. I have learned professionally that a great deal of very concrete scientific data exists on differences between men and women. These include sensory and environmental and developmental differences. The data supporting the math claims is quite beyond any question. Women have as a average a mathematical capacity differential that is in the order of 10:1 on performance testing different. This is biological and has long been known to be so. Tell the MODS I am talking science and not policy and am not being troll this is just facts.
Being aware of Adm. Grace Hopper USN and Ada and other exceptional females (including a daughter of mine) I could hardly apply an average to anyone. But being ignorant of what is going on or politically correct in this matter is just stupid. We have allowed our political motives to get out of line with our science here.
Hillary Clinton (Ex Prez Wife and US Senator) was willing to accept and actually testified and got policy changed in medical research over this very issue. Prior to her efforts medicines as a whole were never tested on women to determine if they had differential effects to men. They are now and the results are most intersting. I am no supporter ot many of the Clinton policies but this was a very correct action. In medicine it is saving lives.
In our world many problems develop because we are politically motivated and not science moderated. How on earth can it be that we can see that women and men have differences in strength, temperment and even have as a whole different ratios of muscle to fat in their bodies and cannot see that they behave differently? How can we be so arrogant as to breed animals for temper and abilities and be unwilling to see that various humans have differences? This accusing those who discuss overwhelming scientific evidence as if they were bigots has got to stop.
Re:Total bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
Since I've been around, one professor has died, one has retired, and one left for another position. They were men, and they were replaced by men. It would have been hard to replace them with women because not a single woman applied. It wasn't especially easy to replace them at all. What to do?
Asperger's Syndrome is the reason (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic147.htm
Google Mathematics+Asperger's
Re:Great! (Score:1, Informative)
Men have more accidents than women. However, men drive considerably more miles than women - probably because most long-distance professional drivers are men. On a per mile basis, men are better drivers. This is the only statistic that is relevant - if a little old lady drives 100 miles per year and has an accident once every 3 years, she is a far worse driver than an 18-wheel truck diver who logs 200,000 miles per year and has an accident every other year.
The male / female safety difference is even more pronounced if you eliminate drivers under 25. A large percentage of male accidents occurs in this youthful, immature bracket.
The usual references to 'women drivers', however bigoted-sounding, refers to basic mechanical skills, and whether the PC crowd likes it or not, mature male drivers are somewhat more skilled than mature female ones.
And don't forget the professional race car driver angle here. There should surely be more than a small handful of females in this profession by now, and they should be doing a lot better at the upper echelons, if there were not an inherent difference.