A Professor and Her Smelling Salts: Men and women are different! Cutting-edge science hits Boston.

National Review Online ^ | January 19, 2005 | Jonah Goldberg

[mdmathis6]

The poor woman "got tha vapahs"!

[MikeHu]

Some men are smarter than some women,
and some women are smarter than some men.

You'd think we'd moved pass this need for generalizing and stereotypical thinking. That was a cultural strategy that has long outlived its usefulness. We should at least be looking at significant differences.

There used to be a time in athletic competitions (Olympics) that people who wanted to be competitive in a sport of their choosing could just choose to do so -- and will themselves to prevail over all the others, despite whether they were genetically predisposed to those skills. Now, most of the really talented are identified by the time they are five to be a "natural" at that sport -- and no amount of training and will is going to be able to overcome that lack of natural ability. Even as great a talent as Michael Jordan learned that he could not be the best at whatever he wanted to be the best at -- while there were those things he could do easily that nobody else could even imagine doing.

It's very damaging for people to be taught to believe they have an equal chance at something when they really don't. They need to realize in what it is they have a natural ability and advantage -- rather than be encouraged to struggle all their lives at that which is difficult or unpleasant for them to do. People are happy at what they do well.

But we're not doing anybody any favors by telling karaoke wannabes that they sound like Bocelli or Dion -- when they're not! We're only setting them up for a life of delusion, disappointment and despair if they don't figure that out. It's very reminiscent of the resentment and bitterness so many of today's liberals seem to have -- especially in the media and politics. They're not ready for prime time and never will be, no matter how much criticism and advice they have for George W. Bush.

I think that is the galling thing for them. He didn't grow up dreaming to be president of the United States but he became one. That's destiny -- like nearly every great leader has had. It was just meant to be. He obviously was the right person at the right place at the right time.

The disturbing presumption is that academics at Harvard is what everyone aspires to be -- or should aspire to as the mark of great distinction and achievement in this world. Many have more important things to do. It's always seemed to me that the mark of a great person was the humility they manifested despite their great talent and ability -- rather than the endless self-promotion of these wannabes the rest of us recognize as "media hogs."

[LibFreeOrDie]

Here's a link to the critique of Hopkin's MIT "study" mentioned in the NR article. (Also, scroll down to see data on the distribution of math talent, males vs. females.):

http://www.uaf.edu/northern/mitstudy/


It seems the feminists in academe have no problem accepting innate differences between the sexes when it benefits them, or makes men look worse.

Two academics who have built their careers on proving innate gender differences are Deborah Tannen and Carol Gilligan.

Tannen's experiments showed innate differences in the way men and women communicate. She's written a few popular books on the subject ("You Just Don't Understand"). Here's a link to a slide show of her main ideas:
http://www.usm.maine.edu/com/genderlect/sld001.htm

Carol Gilligan's experiments showed innate gender differences in moral reasoning. In fact, her work in this field while at Harvard for 30 years earned her the post of first professor of Gender Studies! Here's a link to an outline listing her main ideas:
http://www.acypher.com/BookNotes/Gilligan.html

So apparently it's OK with Nancy Hopkins if women discuss innate differences, but not OK if a male does.