Harvard Row Over Sex And Science

[Anonymouse]

I fail to see anything in this article suggesting that men are more intelligent then women.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

This was only corroborating the gender differences, which feminists like yourself cannot fathom. You do not have to like it.

[DominO123]

That's it, I have warned you that I will ignore your posts the next time you continue drawing my portrait with your intellectual intimidations rather than supporting your cases.

 

Continue monologuing, you're ignored.

Edited February 4, 2005 by QueBeceR

[Armen]

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21839/pub_detail.asp

 

Sex Education at Harvard

By Charles Murray

Posted: Tuesday, January 25, 2005

 

Examining cognitive differences between the sexes can help us understand the sources of human abilities and limitations. We should not be deterred from that task by the fear that the findings will be misconstrued in harmful ways.

 

Forty-six years ago, in The Two Cultures, C. P. Snow famously warned of the dangers when communication breaks down between the sciences and the humanities. The reaction to remarks by Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University, about the differences between men and women was yet another sign of a breakdown that takes Snow's worries to a new level: the wholesale denial that certain bodies of scientific knowledge exist.

 

Mr. Summers's comments, at a supposedly off-the-record gathering, were mild. He offered, as an interesting though unproved possibility, that innate sex differences might explain why so few women are on science and engineering faculties, and he told a story about how nature seemed to trump nurture in his own daughter.

 

To judge from the subsequent furor, one might conclude that Mr. Summers was advancing a radical idea backed only by personal anecdotes and a fringe of cranks. In truth, it is the other way around. If you were to query all the scholars who deal professionally with data about the cognitive repertoires of men and women, all but a fringe would accept that the sexes are different, and that genes are clearly implicated.

 

Innate Gender Differences

 

How our genetic makeup is implicated remains largely unknown, but our geneticists and neuroscientists are doing a great deal of work to unravel the story. When David C. Geary's landmark book Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences was published in 1998, the bibliography of technical articles ran to fifty-two pages--and that was seven years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of articles have been published since.

 

This scholarship shows a notable imbalance, however: scholarship on the environmental sources of male-female differences tends to be stale (wade through a recent assessment of 172 studies of gender differences in parenting involving 28,000 children, and you will discover that two-thirds of the boys were discouraged from playing with dolls but were nurtured pretty much the same as girls in every other way); but scholarship about innate male-female differences has the vibrancy and excitement of an important new field gaining momentum. A recent notable example is The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain, published in 2003 by Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University, which presents a grand unified theory of male and female cognition that may well be a historic breakthrough.

 

"Exciting" is the right word for this work, not "threatening" or "scary." We may not know the answers yet, but we can be confident that they will be more interesting than, say, a discrete gene for science that clicks on for men differently than it does for women. Rather, it will be a story of the interaction of many male and female genetic differences and the way a person's environment affects those differences. Hardly any of the answers will lend themselves to simplistic verdicts of "males are better" or vice versa. For every time there is such a finding favoring males, there will be another favoring females.

 

Responding to Gender Research

 

Some people will find the results threatening--because some people find any group differences threatening--but such fears will be misplaced. We may find that innate differences give men, as a group, an edge over women, as a group, in producing, say, terrific mathematicians. But knowing that fact about the group difference will not change another fact: that some women are terrific mathematicians. The proportions of men and women mathematicians may never be equal, but who cares? What is important is that all women with the potential to become terrific mathematicians have full opportunity to do so.

 

Of course, new knowledge will not be without costs. Perhaps knowing that there is a group difference will discourage some women from even trying to become mathematicians or engineers or circus clowns. We--scientists, parents, educators, employers--must do everything we can to prevent such unwarranted reactions. And the best way to do that is to put the individual's abilities, not group membership, at the center of our attention.

 

Against the cost of the new knowledge is the far greater cost of obliviousness, which can lead us to pursue policies that try to make society conform to expectations that conflict with what human beings really are. In the study of gender, large and growing bodies of good science are helping us understand the sources of human abilities and limitations. It is time to accept their existence, their seriousness, and their legitimacy.

 

Charles Murray is the W. H. Brady Scholar in Culture and Freedom at AEI.

[Anonymouse]

That's it, I have warned you that I will ignore your posts the next time you continue drawing my portrait with your intellectual intimidations rather than supporting your cases.

 

Continue monologuing, you're ignored.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

This is the second time you have claimed to ignore me. Lack of integrity.

[DominO123]

This is the second time you have claimed to ignore me. Lack of integrity.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

True, but I always considererd "making no sense" or "empty talk behavoural disorder" much more worst than a lack of integrity. But of course, that is me.

[Anonymouse]

True, but I always considererd "making no sense" or "empty talk behavoural disorder" much more worst than a lack of integrity. But of course, that is me.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Strange that you always respond to something that is "making no sense" and "empty talk behavoural disorder". How do you think that reflects you to respond to such things?

[Stormig]

Mouse, if Quebecer cannot ignore you, it is for the same reason he can't ignore genocide denialists and engages with them, down to the pettiest site or forum - he always has to counter the BS no matter how hard he tries not to. That is in fact something I admire about him, because I always put the ease and comfort of my mind first and walk away from discussing matters with some scum.

As for differences between the sexes, nobody denies that, but that is called "the genders' being different, not being the same" - it is not about equality. "Equality of sexes" does not exist in the domain of science. It exists in law which aims to regulate human interactions and relationships. I did not bang out the skull of my lecturer when he was discussing the factors that determine the performance of users with a certain user interface in my machine-information systems course, where gender was cited alongside age and others.

To say the sexes are unequal does implicate that one should be "more than" and the other "less than." It does now with two genders as it would if there were three or more genders.

What people like myself don't like is that the influence of social conditioning is integrated with that of our inborn differences. Social conditioning makes Stepford wives and it also makes contrasexuals. Why is it that the former have to be cherished as "natural, nice, motherly females" some jerks can't find pedestals high enough to place them on while fecal matter oozes out of their mouths 24/7, whilst the latter are looked down on? And that is the whole point of people like you - you set out with an agenda, starting out with the "we are different." Everyone knows that, boy. What do you want? A pat on the back? If cognitive experiments are carried out, it is for research, not for some jerks' chest-thumping and back-patting. So what is the whole point of the hours of writing you've just spent on this thread - to pass judgement under the guise of "discussing science" and "carrying out logic"? Puh-lease. If you're so good at it, just go back and do a science major for the sake of knowing a little more jargon, if you stand a chance against the establishment with that attitude, boo hoo. I suppose people who emit oral diarrhoea for the sake of "going against the grain" are not equal to those who are smarter in the way they handle their time and efforts while working on their degrees. Oh geez, what did I just say?

[DominO123]

Mouse, if Quebecer cannot ignore you, it is for the same reason he can't ignore genocide denialists and engages with them, down to the pettiest site or forum - he always has to counter the BS no matter how hard he tries not to. That is in fact something I admire about him, because I always put the ease and comfort of my mind first and walk away from discussing matters with some scum.

As for differences between the sexes, nobody denies that, but that is called "the genders' being different, not being the same" - it is not about equality. "Equality of sexes" does not exist in the domain of science. It exists in law which aims to regulate human interactions and relationships. I did not bang out the skull of my lecturer when he was discussing the factors that determine the performance of users with a certain user interface in my machine-information systems course, where gender was cited alongside age and others.

To say the sexes are unequal does implicate that one should be "more than" and the other "less than." It does now with two genders as it would if there were three or more genders.

What people like myself don't like is that the influence of social conditioning is integrated with that of our inborn differences. Social conditioning makes Stepford wives and it also makes contrasexuals. Why is it that the former have to be cherished as "natural, nice, motherly females" some jerks can't find pedestals high enough to place them on while fecal matter oozes out of their mouths 24/7, whilst the latter are looked down on? And that is the whole point of people like you - you set out with an agenda, starting out with the "we are different." Everyone knows that, boy. What do you want? A pat on the back? If cognitive experiments are carried out, it is for research, not for some jerks' chest-thumping and back-patting. So what is the whole point of the hours of writing you've just spent on this thread - to pass judgement under the guise of "discussing science" and "carrying out logic"? Puh-lease. If you're so good at it, just go back and do a science major for the sake of knowing a little more jargon, if you stand a chance against the establishment with that attitude, boo hoo. I suppose people who emit oral diarrhoea for the sake of "going against the grain" are not equal to those who are smarter in the way they handle their time and efforts while working on their degrees. Oh geez, what did I just say?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Reading the posts made from men vs women on this forum, we see whom are acting like kids, and whom aren`t.

 

Just to add about social prejudice. A recent study has indicated, higher IQ a man had, more change there was for him to get married. It was the contrary with women. Many man are not attracted by intelligent woman... because it hurts their ego.

[Anonymouse]

Mouse, if Quebecer cannot ignore you, it is for the same reason he can't ignore genocide denialists and engages with them, down to the pettiest site or forum - he always has to counter the BS no matter how hard he tries not to. That is in fact something I admire about him, because I always put the ease and comfort of my mind first and walk away from discussing matters with some scum.

As for differences between the sexes, nobody denies that, but that is called "the genders' being different, not being the same" - it is not about equality. "Equality of sexes" does not exist in the domain of science. It exists in law which aims to regulate human interactions and relationships. I did not bang out the skull of my lecturer when he was discussing the factors that determine the performance of users with a certain user interface in my machine-information systems course, where gender was cited alongside age and others.

To say the sexes are unequal does implicate that one should be "more than" and the other "less than." It does now with two genders as it would if there were three or more genders.

What people like myself don't like is that the influence of social conditioning is integrated with that of our inborn differences. Social conditioning makes Stepford wives and it also makes contrasexuals. Why is it that the former have to be cherished as "natural, nice, motherly females" some jerks can't find pedestals high enough to place them on while fecal matter oozes out of their mouths 24/7, whilst the latter are looked down on? And that is the whole point of people like you - you set out with an agenda, starting out with the "we are different." Everyone knows that, boy. What do you want? A pat on the back? If cognitive experiments are carried out, it is for research, not for some jerks' chest-thumping and back-patting. So what is the whole point of the hours of writing you've just spent on this thread - to pass judgement under the guise of "discussing science" and "carrying out logic"? Puh-lease. If you're so good at it, just go back and do a science major for the sake of knowing a little more jargon, if you stand a chance against the establishment with that attitude, boo hoo. I suppose people who emit oral diarrhoea for the sake of "going against the grain" are not equal to those who are smarter in the way they handle their time and efforts while working on their degrees. Oh geez, what did I just say?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Remember that article I posted on page 6 of this thread? Notice the following paragraph which I think is most relevant here.

 

In about one out of every 10,000 pregnancies, a genetic defect causes female babies to be exposed to a bath of androgen - male hormones. They're called CAH girls, short for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The children are born female. If this is a sexist world, these CAH girls get all the sexist messages other girls get. Yet they don't act like the other girls. There's something in them that's innately male.

[Solaris]

Remember that article I posted on page 6 of this thread? Notice the following paragraph which I think is most relevant here.

 

In about one out of every 10,000 pregnancies, a genetic defect causes female babies to be exposed to a bath of androgen - male hormones. They're called CAH girls, short for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The children are born female. If this is a sexist world, these CAH girls get all the sexist messages other girls get. Yet they don't act like the other girls. There's something in them that's innately male.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Mouse,

 

Don't believe everything you read. Not every "article" that appears to suit your line of thinking has to make sense. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia/CAH isn't some mysterious condition making women immune from "sexist messages" but a well-known disease affecting both females and males. Severe cases are rare, affecting only one in 14,000 patients, but mild forms of the disease may occur in one of every 100 to 1,000 persons (your article doesn't even have the figures straight). The condition is caused by a deficient synthesis of a hormone called cortisol, and the severity of the condition is determined by the degree of enzyme insufficiency.

 

According to American Family Physician, March 1, 1999 by Michael A. Deaton, John E. Glorioso, David B. Mclean:

 

"The hallmark of congenital adrenal hyperplasia is inadequate production of glucocorticoids. Patients with mild congenital adrenal hyperplasia are frequently unable to mount sufficient stress responses to trauma and infection. Glucocorticoid precursors accumulate in these persons and are converted to androgenic steroids, causing shortened stature, early puberty, severe acne, and virilization and infertility in females. Mineralocorticoid synthesis can also be affected, resulting in electrolyte disturbances, hypotension and syncope. … Even mild congenital adrenal hyperplasia can result in life-threatening sinus or pulmonary infections, orthostatic syncope, shortened stature and severe acne. Women with mild congenital adrenal hyperplasia often present with hirsutism, oligomenorrhea or infertility."

 

I can't see what's the relevance of pointing to a rather nasty disease to prove that women are not "equal". And if you quoted that shallow piece of literature to show that hormones do affect human behaviour, then you're forcing an open door. It's common knowledge that they do. For instance, excess testosterone causes aggressivity - and many overzealous a bodybuilder has gone berserk after pumping the stuff into his ripply arm or round bottom. But that's all about behaviour, not intellect. In the context of your Harvard brouhaha, it can be more about women's ability to elbow their way up to a Dean's job rather than their intellect and aptitude in exact sciences.

[Solaris]

The burden of proof is on the party making an assertion that goes against what is observed. It is observed that men have excelled. That is something we can all agree on. Any third party would accept that men excel unless it is shown that women are equal. Unfortunately, as I said, illustration of oppression is not proof of potential. Those things you mentioned, "conditions, society etc.," are not quantifiable. Again nobody is saying that oppression has not played a role in snuffing potential but you cannot say how much and therefore the idea is useless.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Dusken,

 

In truth it is observed that white men have excelled. Your logic would also suggest that white men excel black or Asian males, "unless it is shown that black or Asian males are equal". The current state of affairs appears to be the corollary of the typical patterns of discrimination, and implies that the most privileged group has excelled most, nothing more and nothing less.

Edited February 6, 2005 by Solaris

[DominO123]

Welcome to Hyeforum Solaris.

[Solaris]

Welcome to Hyeforum Solaris.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Thanx QueBeceR!

BTW, I'm quite impressed by the quality of discussions in this forum.

And I really like your signature...

[Stormig]

Remember that article I posted on page 6 of this thread? Notice the following paragraph which I think is most relevant here.

 

In about one out of every 10,000 pregnancies, a genetic defect causes female babies to be exposed to a bath of androgen - male hormones. They're called CAH girls, short for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The children are born female. If this is a sexist world, these CAH girls get all the sexist messages other girls get. Yet they don't act like the other girls. There's something in them that's innately male.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I don't believe I am a CAH girl even if it is implied that I am, even if I've been "accused of" having a male brain, displayed greater physical prowess than most of my friends, or never played with Barbie dolls. But, for the record, for all the sexist messages I got, I've always been different because I've said "Screw that" to what didn't suit me, not because I've had anything "innately male"... I don't owe any of my achievements to being anything male to any degree or nature - I owe it to my strong individualism - which is why I've been immune to all the messages and been at times reproved for it. Strongly recommended to members of the same sex.

Edited February 6, 2005 by Stormig

[Stormig]

Solaris, I bid you welcome.

[Anonymouse]

Mouse,

 

Don't believe everything you read. Not every "article" that appears to suit your line of thinking has to make sense. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia/CAH isn't some mysterious condition making women immune from "sexist messages" but a well-known disease affecting both females and males. Severe cases are rare, affecting only one in 14,000 patients, but mild forms of the disease may occur in one of every 100 to 1,000 persons (your article doesn't even have the figures straight). The condition is caused by a deficient synthesis of a hormone called cortisol, and  the severity of the condition is  determined by the degree of enzyme insufficiency.

 

According to  American Family Physician,  March 1, 1999  by Michael A. Deaton,  John E. Glorioso,  David B. Mclean:

 

"The hallmark of congenital adrenal hyperplasia is inadequate production of glucocorticoids. Patients with mild congenital adrenal hyperplasia are frequently unable to mount sufficient stress responses to trauma and infection. Glucocorticoid precursors accumulate in these persons and are converted to androgenic steroids, causing shortened stature, early puberty, severe acne, and virilization and infertility in females. Mineralocorticoid synthesis can also be affected, resulting in electrolyte disturbances, hypotension and syncope. … Even mild congenital adrenal hyperplasia can result in life-threatening sinus or pulmonary infections, orthostatic syncope, shortened stature and severe acne. Women with mild congenital adrenal hyperplasia often present with hirsutism, oligomenorrhea or infertility."

 

I can't see what's the relevance of pointing to a rather nasty disease to prove that women are not "equal". And if you quoted that shallow piece of literature to show that hormones do affect human behaviour, then you're forcing an open door. It's common knowledge that they do. For instance, excess testosterone causes aggressivity -  and many overzealous a bodybuilder has gone berserk after pumping the stuff into his ripply arm or round bottom.    But that's all about behaviour, not intellect. In the context of your Harvard brouhaha, it can be more about women's ability to elbow their way up to a Dean's job rather than their intellect and aptitude in exact sciences.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Actually, I didn't use that to prove "women are not equal", I used to to show that certain females, in this case I won't name names, are prone to that male aggressiveness and lack of femininity by having a little drop of androgen

Edited February 6, 2005 by Anonymouse

[Nakharar]

Actually, I didn't use that to prove "women are not equal", I used to to show that certain females, in this case I won't name names, are prone to that male aggressiveness and lack of femininity by having a little drop of androgen

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Right on!

[Stormig]

This thread is about the row over "sex and science," not some stick-figures' taste in Stepford mop-heads.

[Anonymouse]

This thread is about the row over "sex and science," not some stick-figures' taste in Stepford mop-heads.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You can whine and try to "intimidate" men all you want, but that only stems from our differences, our inequalities and your inability to accept that fact as the Harvard Professor highlighted. It doesn't mean one is better, it means we are different, ergo unequal. You will be most easily remembered as never having come to grips with that reality and fighting "male chauvinism" of Harvard Presidents and Anonymice to the end of days.

Edited February 6, 2005 by Anonymouse

[Solaris]

Actually, I didn't use that to prove "women are not equal", I used to to show that certain females, in this case I won't name names, are prone to that male aggressiveness and lack of femininity by having a little drop of androgen

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I see… I'm a newbie and haven’t had the time to gain such a deep insight into the subtleties of veteran members' relationships…

 

Still, whaz wrong with some female forumers being "prone to that male aggressiveness and lack of femininity" if, as it turns out, that's what the doctor ordered for surviving in a men's world? That's perhaps not the result of a "drop of androgen" but a normal evolutionary development?

 

Apparently gender stereotypes are so deeply embedded in your brain that they make you consider this occurrence of coherent logic in a female as an anomaly caused by some hormonal disorder. I smell something quite like inferiority complex here...

 

And hasn't it occurred to you that it's perhaps you or your discussion techniques that provoke aggressiveness in otherwise innocuous females?

Edited February 6, 2005 by Solaris

[Solaris]

This thread is about the row over "sex and science," not some stick-figures' taste in Stepford mop-heads.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Stick-figures with a penchant for "Stepford mop-heads", as you put it, are apparently unable to discuss such delicate matters and thus tend to turn the thread into something closer to their own concerns. I'm afraid the whole thing is turning into a sterile debate over something that is essentially a non-issue.

[Stormig]

it means we are different, ergo unequal.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Wrong again. I already said "equality of sexes" as a concept doesn't exist in the realm of science, medicine, what have you, and like a typical coward you haven't addressed that, and I strongly advise you to go back to school, or double major in a science degree, maybe even a degree in engineering, even the lightest of the light, environmental engineering, and I'll get back to you in four years from now. Until then, know your bounds and crawl into the gutter as the vermin Summers ought to. Might I also add that you could do with some male hormone supplements yourself - you leave me with the mental image of a back-street mumbling, gossipping haggard, female at that.

[Stormig]

Stick-figures with a penchant for "Stepford mop-heads", as you put it, are apparently unable to discuss such delicate matters  and thus tend to turn the thread into something closer to their own concerns. I'm afraid the whole thing is turning into a sterile debate over something that is essentially a non-issue. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

True enough. Maybe, as well, one ought to give the poor deprived their much desired pat-on-the-back so they can have their serving of manure and rest in peace.

[Anonymouse]

I see… I'm a newbie and haven’t had the time to gain such a deep insight into the subtleties of veteran members' relationships… 

 

Still, whaz wrong with some female forumers being "prone to that male aggressiveness and lack of femininity" if, as it turns out, that's what the doctor ordered for surviving in a men's world? That's perhaps not the result of a "drop of androgen" but a normal evolutionary development? 

 

Apparently gender stereotypes are so deeply embedded in your brain that they make you consider this occurrence of coherent logic in a female as an anomaly caused by some hormonal disorder. I smell something quite like inferiority complex here...

 

And hasn't it occurred to you that it's perhaps you or your discussion techniques that provoke aggressiveness in otherwise innocuous females?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Certain words and phrases such as "gender stereotypes" highlight that you are of the feminist pesuasion that there really are no differences and that we actually can be made "equal" a mythical idealism Marxists, leftists, environmentalists, egalitarians, and all others of the leftist persuasion adhere to. Touching indeed.

 

If my discussion techniques provoke people, they are free to ignore me or not respond. I assure you I do not do so intentionally, but such is the nature of the beast.

[Anonymouse]

Wrong again. I already said "equality of sexes" as a concept doesn't exist in the realm of science, medicine, what have you, and like a typical coward you haven't addressed that, and I strongly advise you to go back to school, or double major in a science degree, maybe even a degree in engineering, even the lightest of the light, environmental engineering, and I'll get back to you in four years from now. Until then, know your bounds and crawl into the gutter as the vermin Summers ought to. Might I also add that you could do with some male hormone supplements yourself - you leave me with the mental image of a back-street mumbling, gossipping haggard, female at that.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Such aggressive words coming from a female, my, my, my, are you trying to match with me on testosterone? I must have missed the part where you said "equality of the sexes" as a concept doesn't exist. That's good, we agree then, men and women are not equal and are different. The rest of your antics of inanity are pointless.