Posted on 08/08/2005 3:46:23 AM PDT by Pharmboy
TWO big scientific debates have attracted a lot of attention over the past year. One concerns the causes of autism, while the other addresses differences in scientific aptitude between the sexes. At the risk of adding fuel to both fires, I submit that these two lines of inquiry have a great deal in common. By studying the differences between male and female brains, we can generate significant insights into the mystery of autism.
So was Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, right when he remarked that women were innately less suited than men to be top-level scientists? Judging from current research, he was and he wasn't. It's true that scientists have documented psychological and physiological differences between male and female brains. But Mr. Summers was wrong to imply that these differences render any individual woman less capable than any individual man of becoming a top-level scientist.
In fact, the differences that show up in brain research reflect averages, meaning that they emerge only when you study groups of males and females and compare the two groups' averages on particular psychological tests or physiological measures. The evidence to date tells us nothing about individuals - which means that if you are a woman, there is no evidence to suggest that you could not become a Nobel laureate in your chosen area of scientific inquiry. A good scientist is a good scientist regardless of sex.
Nonetheless, with brain scanning, we can discern physiological differences between the average male and the average female brain. For example, the average man's cerebrum (the area in the front of the brain concerned with higher thinking) is 9 percent larger than the average woman's. Similar, though less distinct, overgrowth is found in all the lobes of the male brain.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Baron-Cohen is being a bit disingenuous here. Based on the data we have to date, the odds are worse for women to win Nobel prizes in the sciences. While you cannot point to a baby girl and say she will not win the prize in physics, she does have less of a chance based on fact than a baby boy.
But you don't understand -- you cannot publish or say ANYTHING that might hinder a protected class member.
Doesn't matter what the facts are.
;-)
oh, not really.
population-statistics do not tell us anything (in any concrete sense) about individuals.
This article is a perfect example of the politicization of "science" in the Academy today.
It is in fact not science at all, but the left has so poisoned the well that it is impossible to have any discussion about anything at all with out that discussion becoming one about politics. They are so intellectuall dishonest that one can not even have a dexision about data.
The very proposition that, given a shortage of scientist, we need to support the very group that shows the least aptitude shows how low we have fallen as a civilization.
While it is untrue that the sciences have been left untouched by the left, it is true that they have not been as thoroughly destroyed as the humanities.
But just you watch, soon the sciences will be completely destroyed as anything else but another political platform on campus, and this will be through the machinations of the feminists.
Sounds absurd? You ain't seen nothing yet.
If you actually read the article I find it hard to believe you understood any of it.
Spare me please.
While it cannot accurately predict performance for individuals, odds can be assigned for those that are members of defined groups based on past performance.
He never said anything of the sort.
There goes the NYTimes again, not only do they not solve the problem, by placing feelings and reason on the same plane, they actually make the problems harder to solve.
Strategerist appears to be a member of the it's-all-about-the-environment group based on a discussion we were having about Hitler's upbringing and serial killers the other day.
He seemed to say something pretty close to that when remarking on women in academic science. What do you disagree with?
Nice strawman construction.
I just found it fascinating that people were so uncomfortable with the idea that someone's environment played ANY role in how their personality or behavior turns out (which is obviously true.)
Make a remotely intelligent observation on the article giving some indication you actually read it, and I will.
not to hijack a thread, but since its already off to such a fractious start, I'd like to point out that the article's author is the first cousin of Ali G.
I bet that way all the time.
driving, for instance.
I "bet" that the no-driving mo-tard will not run the light, based on a very large sample indicating low probability that the motard will run the light.
didn't prevent me from getting hit by one deviant motard ;)
No level of absurdity from the feminists and/or the left would surprise me at this point. They detest the truth and tie themselves up in knots running from it.
oh, don't sweat it: I'll be the first to back the notion that men and women, generally, have distinct differences in mental abilities.
I'll also state that the difference between the averages is less than the difference displayed in the range within a gender.
I'm sure it's documented all over the place on other threads.
The fact is he never made any claims about anything, all he ever did was ask the question and it was enough to fire off a witch hunt.
I know you PharmBoy and I enjoy and agree with most of your posts so don't take my passion on this issue as directed toward you. Its just that this issue more than any other recently struck me as wholly unjust. Here was a man who was forced to recant his question because it offended current sensibilities. And to save his career he went and admitted that the earth was flat.
It was an absolute travesty of justice.
There have been millions of people who have grown up in abusive homes but an infinitesmal number of serial killers.
While the environment over the last few hundred years was admittedly not ideal for producing female mathematicians or physicists, you could put a math tutor in every infant girl's home from now on and there will STILL be more male mathematicians than female. There are significant differences between men and women and genes are really important in brain function.
That's the facts, Jack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.