Sender: -2.5 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.60.0501271437040.16232 &AElig 2004-0034>
References: <Pine.SOL.4.58.0501270957520.9872 &AElig mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0501271420250.8257 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> <Pine.WNT.4.60.0501271437040.16232 &AElig 2004-0034>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <2A3F6C25-7565-11D9-BB12-000A95DA4C4C &AElig umich.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:55:34 -0500
To: Karen Conneely <conneely &AElig umich.edu>
Cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu, Michelle J Sternthal <mjste &AElig umich.edu>,         Alyssa Suzanne Pozniak <apozniak &AElig umich.edu>, amnoone &AElig umich.edu,         Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>, Bethany Soule <bsoule &AElig gmail.com>,         Sarah Rachelle Nuss-Warren <sarahrn &AElig umich.edu>,         Jeanette Mumford <jmumford &AElig umich.edu>
From: Dave morris <thecat &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Did Summers improve the world?
Status: RO

I'd come out in favor of saying it will improve the world more than it  
will hurt the world. I think that in general the climate today has  
become too PC- the various "ists" are so quick to jump on anyone who  
says anything that might indicate prejudice or any of the "isms", that  
I feel it's gotten to the point that it may be stifling open discussion  
and thought. His comment sparked a good deal of discussion, and that  
can be a good thing.

Simultaneously I think it's good that people attacked the comments,  
pointed out that he was misinterpreting the research he cited, and that  
the issue is by no means so clear cut. This is exactly the message  
people need to keep hearing- some people think these differences exist,  
but there's no real proof and more study needs to be done to understand  
who we are and how we work, both cross gender and within genders. I  
think the same thing applies for races.

I think your idea of looking at the trend over time is excellent.  
Definitely research into this issue should come from a wide variety of  
angles. Part of it is biochemical- hooking wires up to people's brains,  
seeing how they respond when they think about certain things, seeing if  
there's any difference in men and women etc., part of it is  
educational- try different techniques in classrooms and study the  
results over time, part of it is social- study the effects of speeches  
like Summers' and other external influences, and perhaps most  
importantly historical- see how things are changing over time and if  
one variable (our genetics) isn't changing but the answer (%women  
scientists) is, then it brings to doubt the importance of that  
variable.

I stand firmly by my belief that the conclusion will be that there are  
very clear differences between how the genders think (probably not  
races), and learn, but only in median values- even one standard  
deviation within genders will exceed the difference in means between  
them. And that this is a strength of our species, not a weakness of  
either gender, and that the ideal end result will be the proper  
assembly of teams of people, of different genders and different  
personality/mental types between genders, to approach problems more  
effectively from a variety of angles rather than in the excessively  
rigid male targeted approach that has historically ruled.

I agree that in the long run those teams could and should likely be  
formed independent of gender (i.e. rather than having 5 women and 5  
men, you have 5 focusers and 5 generalizers or some such), but the  
stereotypes that everyone recognizes and sees, and the faults in those,  
are an obvious useful starting point for studying what the differences  
are (and aren't) and why and how.

So yes, carefully, and perhaps the ideal setup given the tendency of  
our society to overdo such things and misunderstand and overreact to  
such things, perhaps our current setup is near the best approach- one  
brave person stands up and suggests a possibility, and everyone attacks  
it from all angles, and that's how the research gets  
started/critiqued/moved forward. But the day when that person can't  
stand up and disagree with the current PC norms for fear of losing  
their jobs and credibility will be a sad day for humanity.

That's my long winded rambling opinion anyway. :-)

Dave


On Jan 27, 2005, at 3:21 PM, Karen Conneely wrote:

> A question I'd like to put out to the whole group is this: do you  
> think Lawrence Summers' comments last week, true or not, did more good  
> or harm? I can see arguments for both of these, I don't think it's a  
> clear-cut issue.
>
> How it might do good:  He's getting other researchers to look at this  
> issue again, maybe in ways that could help people.  The debate has  
> made me wish I were still an economist so I could go figure out a cool  
> hypothesis and some cool data to test it with.
>
> How it might do harm:  Scientists have a lot of sway.  If parents,  
> teachers, and students take what he said as fact, it might contribute  
> to female students being discouraged from entering mathematical  
> fields.  I know I was discouraged in this way by certain teachers, and  
> I'd hate to see Summers' well-intentioned words feed that sort of  
> thing.
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>> After reading a collection of articles about this (http://aldaily.com  
>> and
>> grep for Summers) I ended up right where I started:  having no real
>> opinion on whether or not Summers is a slimeball.
>>
>> I like this Borowitz report though :) <reprinted at bottom of email>
>
> I don't think he's a slimeball, at least not on purpose.  I think it  
> was reasonable of him to ask the question of whether the preponderance  
> of male scientists was due to innate differences.  Debating that stuff  
> is how we figure it out, or how we figure out ways to figure it out.   
> I do think it was probably bumbling and irresponsible of him to ask it  
> the way he did, though.  As scientists, we need to make it crystal  
> clear when we are stating proven facts vs. personal opinions, and here  
> I think he failed. He was speaking as the president of Harvard and as  
> a renowned economist, and he stated what was essentially a conjecture  
> and cited two studies that supposedly backed it up.  Upon further  
> investigation, these studies really didn't say what he was  
> interpreting them to say, and the authors even came forward to point  
> this out.
>
> There are many studies that show that men and women think differently  
> and use their brains differently.  I don't think anyone debates that.  
> However, this is not the same as saying that men are naturally better  
> at X and women are naturally better at Y.   We haven't gotten close to  
> settling this issue yet, but I suspect that a statement like that  
> would be a vast oversimplification of the complex differences between  
> the sexes.  And even if we could say this, we don't have enough  
> evidence to decide how much of these differences are innate vs.  
> socialized.  I also wonder if this is one of those situations where  
> the within-group variation is greater than between-group variation.
>
> I think more research to address the differences would be useful.  Not  
> so we can make statements like the above, but so we can understand how  
> our minds work and how to teach people according to their strengths.   
> As someone (I think Annie) pointed out, it might be useful to separate  
> people into classes not by gender but by learning style - ie visual  
> vs. auditory, etc.  I would think more brain imaging studies would be  
> useful to see which parts of the brain are active while men and women  
> perform various tasks, and if there is a consistent pattern.  Studies  
> of the influence of hormones on early brain development would have to  
> be key, since this would get at the innateness vs. socialization  
> question. And we could easily look at studies of the overall trend of  
> women in the sciences.  If the percentage of scientists that are women  
> continues to increase without appearing to converge, this could  
> indicate that society is in a transition phase that isn't done yet;  
> perhaps eventually the ratio will be closer to 1:1.  Do people have  
> other ideas of interesting studies that could be done?  Or maybe know  
> of studies like this that have already been done?
>
> Karen
>
>>
>> --- \/   FROM Karen Conneely AT 05.01.27 10:00 (Today)   \/ ---
>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:10:23 -0500
>>> From: Borowitzreport.com <andy &AElig borowitzreport.com>
>>> To: conneely &AElig umich.edu
>>> Subject: harvard president shocker
>>>
>>> January 26, 2005
>>> HARVARD TO OFFER MAJOR IN HOME EC
>>>
>>>
>>> Move Seen as Olive Branch to Women
>>>
>>> In an effort to "level the academic playing field," Harvard  
>>> University
>>> President Lawrence Summers announced today that the university would
>>> introduce a home economics major designed specifically for its female
>>> students.
>>>
>>> "Starting in the fall, Harvard will offer home economics for women  
>>> who
>>> find economics too tricky," said Mr. Summers, who called the move  
>>> "long
>>> overdue."
>>>
>>> Mr. Summers said that the new courses would help women at Harvard
>>> improve their grade point averages, adding, "When it comes to getting
>>> busy in the kitchen, women are second to none."
>>>
>>> The home ec major, which will consist of courses in cooking, sewing  
>>> and
>>> what Summers called "the allied domestic arts and sciences," is
>>> considered a major departure for the curriculum of the storied  
>>> academic
>>> institution.
>>>
>>> Coming in the wake of Mr. Summers' recent controversial remarks about
>>> purported intellectual differences between the sexes, the Harvard
>>> president's decision to introduce a home economics major for women  
>>> was
>>> widely seen as an olive branch of sorts.
>>>
>>> But the move may have backfired, as an angry mob of female faculty
>>> members protested outside his office today, demanding his immediate
>>> ouster and burning Mr. Summers in effigy.
>>>
>>> In a meeting with the protesters, Mr. Summers promised that he would
>>> recruit additional women to the Harvard faculty but refused to tell  
>>> the
>>> protesters how many: "I don't want to fill your heads with a lot of  
>>> big
>>> numbers you won't understand."
>>>
>>> Elsewhere, Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales continued to
>>> disavow torture today, but told reporters, "This is harder than  
>>> quitting
>>> smoking."
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe to this e-mail list please paste the following URL:
>>> http://www.borowitzreport.com/contact.asp?email=conneely &AElig umich.edu  
>>> into
>>> your browser address bar or forward this message to
>>> "remove &AElig borowitzreport.com".
>>>
>>> www.Borowitzreport.com
>>> Waste Someone's Time: Forward to a Friend:
>>> http://www.borowitzreport.com/email_form.asp? 
>>> email=conneely &AElig umich.edu&rec=1054
>>>
>>> SUBSCRIBE TODAY!  Free Email Updates, click the link below or paste  
>>> it
>>> into your browser. http://www.borowitzreport.com/subscribe.asp
>>>
>>> ***
>>> BOROWITZ AT THE HBO COMEDY FESTIVAL IN ASPEN***
>>>
>>> See Andy at this year's HBO Comedy Festival in Aspen. Scheduled so  
>>> far:
>>> Thursday, February 10: 9:00 PM, The Tent
>>> Saturday, February 12: 1:00 PM, Wheeler Opera House
>>> For more details, go to www.hbocomedyfestival.com
>>>
>>> ***
>>> BRING THE BOROWITZ REPORT TO YOUR TOWN***
>>> The Borowitz Report is now being syndicated to local newspapers by  
>>> Creators Syndicate. Contact your local newspaper and tell them to  
>>> start carrying the Borowitz Report today!
>>
>> --
>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  google://"Daniel Reeves"
>>
>> "Instead of studying for finals, what about just going to the
>> Bahamas and catching some rays? Maybe you'll flunk, but you might
>> have flunked anyway; that's my point." -- Jack Handey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Dave Morris
University of Michigan EM PhD candidate, aka thecat &AElig umich.edu, aka  
KB8PWY
home: 734-995-5525  office (2104 SPRL): 734-763-5357  fax: 734-763-5567
ElectroDynamic Applications Inc.
phone: (734) 786-1434 fax: (734) 786-3235
morris &AElig edapplications.com