"John Vreeland" wrote in message
news:etd3v019r90v7b8rlr768gvbpaaonfi9eu@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:08:35 GMT, "George"
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/21/news/harvard.html
>>
>>The president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, has personally apologized
>>to
>>a group of distinguished female professors, the Standing Committee on Women,
>>as
>>he battles to convince the university's faculty of his commitment to diversity
>>after remarks suggesting that women may be innately less able to succeed in
>>math
>>and science careers.
>>
>>Summers requested the meeting after the group reproached him in a letter on
>>Tuesday, saying his remarks to an academic conference Jan. 14 reinforced an
>>institutional culture at Harvard that made it difficult to recruit top
>>scholars
>>who are women.
>>
>>In his remarks, Summers suggested that innate differences may explain why
>>fewer
>>women than men succeed in science and math careers.
>
> I am disappointed in his lack of intellectual integrity.
>
> In my upper level engineering courses (BSEE, to be specific) the
> female/male ratio for students was 3%. This was despite the fact that
> most graduates of the university were female. To insist that there is
> not a genetic component to math aptitude that is distributed unevenly
> between the es seems particularly chauvinistic and reactionary. It
> may be purely cultural, but I have a hard time believing that when the
> rest of academia is so highly feminized and women are highly
> encouraged to enter the engineering field. (Well, at least I
> encouraged them.)

As you say, the rest of academia is highly feminized. That you point out a 3%
female to male ratio in upper level engineering when the rest of academia has a
much higher ratio doesn't imply that women can't do engineering. On the
contrary. Are you suggesting that engineering is the only discipline that that
makes use of complex math? If not, then certainly you must recognize that
something else is behind that statistic.

> Mr Summers suggested that one reason might be that although men and
> women had the same average intelligence, statisticly, women tended to
> cluster closer to the mean, while men's intelligence had a higher
> standard deviation. This would tend to make the very brightest people
> predominantly men.

Are you suggesting that only the brightest (which, in your logic above, would be
only men) be allowed to get a science or math education?

From:	Ian H Spedding
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:45:11 -0000

"George" wrote in message
news:MbjId.16628$yY6.2359@attbi_s02...
>
> "John Vreeland" wrote in message
> news:etd3v019r90v7b8rlr768gvbpaaonfi9eu@4ax.com...

[...]

> > Mr Summers suggested that one reason might be that although men and
> > women had the same average intelligence, statisticly, women tended to
> > cluster closer to the mean, while men's intelligence had a higher
> > standard deviation. This would tend to make the very brightest people
> > predominantly men.
>
> Are you suggesting that only the brightest (which, in your logic above,
would be
> only men) be allowed to get a science or math education?

I am sure most people here would not commit the naturalistic fallacy.

Ian

--
Ian H Spedding

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:25:08 GMT

"Ian H Spedding" wrote in message
news:csthss$6ek$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "George" wrote in message
> news:MbjId.16628$yY6.2359@attbi_s02...
>>
>> "John Vreeland" wrote in message
>> news:etd3v019r90v7b8rlr768gvbpaaonfi9eu@4ax.com...
>
> [...]
>
>> > Mr Summers suggested that one reason might be that although men and
>> > women had the same average intelligence, statisticly, women tended to
>> > cluster closer to the mean, while men's intelligence had a higher
>> > standard deviation. This would tend to make the very brightest people
>> > predominantly men.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that only the brightest (which, in your logic above,
> would be
>> only men) be allowed to get a science or math education?
>
> I am sure most people here would not commit the naturalistic fallacy.
>
> Ian
>
> --
> Ian H Spedding
>

Then what are you suggesting?

From:	Friar Broccoli
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	21 Jan 2005 19:08:17 -0800

George wrote:

> Are you suggesting that engineering is the only discipline that that
> makes use of complex math? If not, then certainly you must recognize
that
> something else is behind that statistic.

Interesting you should mention math. My son is in 4th year pure Math
at McGill in Montreal. Almost no women there either. You seem to be
suggesting there is a conspiracy here somewhere. Could you explain it
to me?

Cordially;

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:36:06 GMT

"Friar Broccoli" wrote in message
news:1106363297.868792.323100@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> George wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting that engineering is the only discipline that that
>> makes use of complex math? If not, then certainly you must recognize
> that
>> something else is behind that statistic.
>
> Interesting you should mention math. My son is in 4th year pure Math
> at McGill in Montreal. Almost no women there either. You seem to be
> suggesting there is a conspiracy here somewhere. Could you explain it
> to me?
>
> Cordially;

My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point is?

From:	Bob
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:13:45 GMT

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:36:06 GMT, "George"
wrote:

>
>"Friar Broccoli" wrote in message
>news:1106363297.868792.323100@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> George wrote:
>>
>>> Are you suggesting that engineering is the only discipline that that
>>> makes use of complex math? If not, then certainly you must recognize
>> that
>>> something else is behind that statistic.
>>
>> Interesting you should mention math. My son is in 4th year pure Math
>> at McGill in Montreal. Almost no women there either. You seem to be
>> suggesting there is a conspiracy here somewhere. Could you explain it
>> to me?
>>
>> Cordially;
>
>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point is?
>

nah, she CANT have done that. women dont do math.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

From:	Jo Schaper
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:03:47 -0600

Bob wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:36:06 GMT, "George"
> wrote:

>>
>>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point is?
>>
>
>
> nah, she CANT have done that. women dont do math.
>

I have a degree in geology AND one in writing. I can compute AND spell.

I mastered calculus AFTER age 40. I am also female.

And those fellows of you that don't like it can go back to your locker
room and (imagine male bonding activities here).

best wishes,
Jo

From:	Double Felix
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:12:04 -0800

In article <10v4uc43crs4ecd@corp.supernews.com>,
Jo Schaper wrote:

> Bob wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:36:06 GMT, "George"
> > wrote:
>
> >>
> >>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point is?
> >>
> >
> >
> > nah, she CANT have done that. women dont do math.
> >
>
> I have a degree in geology AND one in writing. I can compute AND spell.
>
> I mastered calculus AFTER age 40. I am also female.
>
> And those fellows of you that don't like it can go back to your locker
> room and (imagine male bonding activities here).
>
> best wishes,
> Jo

Thanks for the inspiration, Jo! I've tried to get through calculus
several times, and being in my mid thirties, I've often felt that I'll
never succeed at it, because my mind isn't getting any sharper.

I can see that I should definitely keep trying! :)

- Felix

From:	Robert Grumbine
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:42:19 -0000

In article ,
Double Felix wrote:
>In article <10v4uc43crs4ecd@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jo Schaper wrote:
>
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:36:06 GMT, "George"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point is?
>> >
>> > nah, she CANT have done that. women dont do math.
>>
>> I have a degree in geology AND one in writing. I can compute AND spell.
>>
>> I mastered calculus AFTER age 40. I am also female.
>>
>> And those fellows of you that don't like it can go back to your locker
>> room and (imagine male bonding activities here).
>>
>Thanks for the inspiration, Jo! I've tried to get through calculus
>several times, and being in my mid thirties, I've often felt that I'll
>never succeed at it, because my mind isn't getting any sharper.
>
>I can see that I should definitely keep trying! :)

Definitely. You might also take a look at _Overcoming Math Anxiety_
by Sheila Tobias. While you may not be specifically math anxious,
some of her strategies would be helpful for someone who isn't getting
any younger.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

From:	jmfbahciv at aol.com
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 05 12:18:23 GMT

In article <10v76tbr1clljfd@corp.supernews.com>,
bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>In article ,
>Double Felix wrote:
>>In article <10v4uc43crs4ecd@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Jo Schaper wrote:

>>> I mastered calculus AFTER age 40. I am also female.
>>>
>>> And those fellows of you that don't like it can go back to your locker
>>> room and (imagine male bonding activities here).
>>>
>>Thanks for the inspiration, Jo! I've tried to get through calculus
>>several times, and being in my mid thirties, I've often felt that I'll
>>never succeed at it, because my mind isn't getting any sharper.
>>
>>I can see that I should definitely keep trying! :)
>
> Definitely. You might also take a look at _Overcoming Math Anxiety_
>by Sheila Tobias. While you may not be specifically math anxious,
>some of her strategies would be helpful for someone who isn't getting
>any younger.

JMF's cousin-in-law had serious algebra anxiety because, when
she was in high school, the algebra Male teacher made her stand
up in class while he spend 15 minutes telling her how stupid she
was, how she will never be able to do the work, and she was
ugly. She was getting her teacher's degree after she turned
40 and was absolutely petrified because she had to take
an algebra course; she kept putting if off.

I sent her two books. The best Schaums for algebra (that matched
her thinking style) and told her to just do one problem a day.
And I sent her Hawking's _A Brief History in Time_; I wrote
that she might not understand much of it but that was OK because
she wasn't supposed understand it all.

She did both. The next time we met, she told me that she
was in the algebra class when the prof asked who had read
the book. She was the only one who raised her hand and
she got a look of respect from the prof. This look was
important. She didn't have fear of algebra after that.

And her precocious 9-year-old son went through the Schaums
algebra book, too. He hasn't looked back.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

From:	Jo Schaper
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:41:09 -0600

Double Felix wrote:

> In article <10v4uc43crs4ecd@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jo Schaper wrote:
>
>
>>Bob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:36:06 GMT, "George"
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point is?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>nah, she CANT have done that. women dont do math.
>>>
>>
>>I have a degree in geology AND one in writing. I can compute AND spell.
>>
>>I mastered calculus AFTER age 40. I am also female.
>>
>>And those fellows of you that don't like it can go back to your locker
>>room and (imagine male bonding activities here).
>>
>>best wishes,
>>Jo
>
>
> Thanks for the inspiration, Jo! I've tried to get through calculus
> several times, and being in my mid thirties, I've often felt that I'll
> never succeed at it, because my mind isn't getting any sharper.
>
> I can see that I should definitely keep trying! :)
>
> - Felix
>

Felix,

The first thing is to pay no attention to the way academia is set
up--that is: you should pass a class the first time, or you are a
failure and should give up. Try your best, but don't be discouraged if
it takes more than one run at calculus. Worry about learning what you
are doing, not about the grades. (Believe me, I know how hard this can
be when you are still in the process, and teachers are not always
cooperative, since they seem to prefer the A students who are just
'reviewing' what they already know.)

Remember when you were a kid and tried something (like riding a bicycle)
for the first time. Did you get up and on and were Lance Armstrong the
first time around? Heck no! You got up and on and crashed. And got up
and on again and wobbled a bit and crashed. After some time, you got the
hang of steering, and balancing, and pedalling all the same time, and
then you got to go Wheeee! And finally, maybe a year down the road, you
learned to steer with one hand, and pop wheelies and such, and maybe
even progressed to a unicycle. Or maybe not. But now, you can ride a
bike with the best of them.

Calculus is a lot like that. But you can get there. Go for it!

Best Wishes
Jo

From:	Robert Flory
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:09:55 -0800

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
news:10v7oel6trlhv32@corp.supernews.com...
>
SNIP
> Remember when you were a kid and tried something (like riding a bicycle)
> for the first time. Did you get up and on and were Lance Armstrong the
> first time around? Heck no! You got up and on and crashed. And got up
> and on again and wobbled a bit and crashed. After some time, you got the
> hang of steering, and balancing, and pedalling all the same time, and
> then you got to go Wheeee! And finally, maybe a year down the road, you
> learned to steer with one hand, and pop wheelies and such, and maybe
> even progressed to a unicycle. Or maybe not. But now, you can ride a
> bike with the best of them.
>
> Calculus is a lot like that. But you can get there. Go for it!
>
> Best Wishes
> Jo
As I recall despite nearly killing myself on a bike, I got more bruises from
Calculus before I finished. My secret in the first course was visit the
help sessions another instructor gave. Two different approaches did the
trick.
Bob

From:	Bob
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:49:06 GMT

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:03:47 -0600, Jo Schaper
wrote:

>Bob wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:36:06 GMT, "George"
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point is?
>>>
>>
>>
>> nah, she CANT have done that. women dont do math.
>>
>
>I have a degree in geology AND one in writing. I can compute AND spell.
>
>I mastered calculus AFTER age 40. I am also female.

well, to right wingers, the important question that determines your
worth is 'how many kids you got?' :)

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:18:46 GMT

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
news:10v4uc43crs4ecd@corp.supernews.com...
> Bob wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:36:06 GMT, "George"
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point is?
>>>
>>
>>
>> nah, she CANT have done that. women dont do math.
>>
>
> I have a degree in geology AND one in writing. I can compute AND spell.
>
> I mastered calculus AFTER age 40. I am also female.
>
> And those fellows of you that don't like it can go back to your locker
> room and (imagine male bonding activities here).
>
> best wishes,
> Jo
>

You go girl!!!

From:	Nichevo
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	21 Jan 2005 22:21:29 -0800

>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point
is?
I think he's implying that she banged the prof(s)...

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:34:21 GMT

"Nichevo" wrote in message
news:1106374889.167823.122610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point
> is?
> I think he's implying that she banged the prof(s)...

Careful. Your stupidity is showing.

From:	Jeffrey Turner
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:42:52 -0500

George wrote:
> "Nichevo" wrote:
>
>>>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point
>>>is?
>>
>>I think he's implying that she banged the prof(s)...
>
> Careful. Your stupidity is showing.

Looked clever to me. Of course I may have been reading
phosphors that weren't obvious.

--Jeff

--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman

In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.
--Jose Narosky

The urge to save humanity is almost
always a false front for the urge to
rule.
--H.L. Mencken

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:59:07 GMT

"Jeffrey Turner" wrote in message
news:10v544u2i02va01@corp.supernews.com...
> George wrote:
>> "Nichevo" wrote:
>>
>>>>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point
>>>>is?
> >>
>>>I think he's implying that she banged the prof(s)...
>>
>> Careful. Your stupidity is showing.
>
> Looked clever to me. Of course I may have been reading
> phosphors that weren't obvious.
>
> --Jeff

I'm not surprised. You'd probably think that requiring female math students to
serve coffee to the prof. to also be "clever".

From:	Jeffrey Turner
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:50:05 -0500

George wrote:
> "Jeffrey Turner" wrote:
>>George wrote:
>>>"Nichevo" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point
>>>>>is?
>>>>
>>>>I think he's implying that she banged the prof(s)...
>>>
>>>Careful. Your stupidity is showing.
>>
>>Looked clever to me. Of course I may have been reading
>>phosphors that weren't obvious.
>
> I'm not surprised. You'd probably think that requiring female math students to
> serve coffee to the prof. to also be "clever".

I'm sorry, the way I read things was that Friar Broccoli had
expressed that there was some biological reason for women not
succeeding in college level math:

Interesting you should mention math. My son is in 4th year
pure Math at McGill in Montreal. Almost no women there
either. You seem to be suggesting there is a conspiracy here
somewhere. Could you explain it to me?

And that Nichevo's reply was casting aspersions on Broccoli's
thesis. If I misread things, I apologize. Maybe I read some
sarcasm into the response that wasn't there, such things aren't
always clear in typed exchanges.

--Jeff

--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman

In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.
--Jose Narosky

The urge to save humanity is almost
always a false front for the urge to
rule.
--H.L. Mencken

From:	Nichevo
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	21 Jan 2005 23:57:00 -0800

>Careful.
Or what?
>Your stupidity is showing.
If you post stupid shit, you get stupid replies.

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:29:41 GMT

"Nichevo" wrote in message
news:1106380620.861637.160390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >Careful.
> Or what?
>>Your stupidity is showing.
> If you post stupid shit, you get stupid replies.

So you think that a woman who gets a math and a geology degree is stupid? What
degrees have you received? Tell me about the mess at the Univerity of Quebec a
few years back, Mr. Maple leaf.

From:	Bob
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:49:00 GMT

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:29:41 GMT, "George"
wrote:

>
>"Nichevo" wrote in message
>news:1106380620.861637.160390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >Careful.
>> Or what?
>>>Your stupidity is showing.
>> If you post stupid shit, you get stupid replies.
>
>So you think that a woman who gets a math and a geology degree is stupid? What
>degrees have you received? Tell me about the mess at the Univerity of Quebec a
>few years back, Mr. Maple leaf.
>
yeah i made that point, too. no proof of ism there, correct?

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

From:	Nichevo
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	22 Jan 2005 09:33:02 -0800

>So you think that a woman who gets a math and a geology degree is
stupid?
Not at all, that would be a remarkably stupid position to take.
I think that bringing up an exception to a generality as some sort of
proof is a silly defence. The fact remains that men, in general, are
better at math than woman, in general. To argue that with
trivialialities is ignorant.

From:	Bob
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:05:09 GMT

On 22 Jan 2005 09:33:02 -0800, "Nichevo" wrote:

>>So you think that a woman who gets a math and a geology degree is
>stupid?
>Not at all, that would be a remarkably stupid position to take.
>I think that bringing up an exception to a generality as some sort of
>proof is a silly defence. The fact remains that men, in general, are
>better at math than woman, in general. To argue that with
>trivialialities is ignorant.
>

and, of course, regardless of the difference, religion has had a far,
far worse effect on women's education than innate differences ever
will

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:57:19 GMT

"Nichevo" wrote in message
news:1106415182.873480.133210@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >So you think that a woman who gets a math and a geology degree is
> stupid?
> Not at all, that would be a remarkably stupid position to take.
> I think that bringing up an exception to a generality as some sort of
> proof is a silly defence. The fact remains that men, in general, are
> better at math than woman, in general. To argue that with
> trivialialities is ignorant.
>

Why is that fact so important to your over-inflated ego?

From:	Nichevo
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	23 Jan 2005 12:26:22 -0800

>Why is that fact so important to your over-inflated ego?
To tell you the truth, this particular fact is not at all important to
me. I just have a fundamental dislike for shitty reasoning. It is
obvious that my initial post here was not to be taken seriously. You
obviously lack some chemical to detect these nuances. I am guessing
that your wife is probably whoring around on you with someone who has
some intellect, hence the sensitivity. You couldn't blame her really...

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:00:17 GMT

"Nichevo" wrote in message
news:1106511982.080248.173740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >Why is that fact so important to your over-inflated ego?
> To tell you the truth, this particular fact is not at all important to
> me. I just have a fundamental dislike for shitty reasoning.

I guess this is shitty reasoning too, in your book:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm

Irvine, Calif. (January 20, 2005) -- While there are essentially no disparities
in general intelligence between the es, a UC Irvine study has found
significant differences in brain areas where males and females manifest their
intelligence.

The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray matter related
to intellectual skill, revealing that no single neuroanatomical structure
determines general intelligence and that different types of brain designs are
capable of producing equivalent intellectual performance.

"These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of
brains designed for equally intelligent behavior," said Richard Haier, professor
of psychology in the Department of Pediatrics and longtime human intelligence
researcher, who led the study with colleagues at UCI and the University of New
Mexico. "In addition, by pinpointing these gender-based intelligence areas, the
study has the potential to aid research on dementia and other
cognitive-impairment diseases in the brain."

Study results appear on the online version of NeuroImage.

In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related
to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of
white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents
information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the
networking of - or connections between - these processing centers.

This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study,
may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local
processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and
assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such
as required for language facility. These two very different neurological
pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance
on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence
tests.

The study also identified regional differences with intelligence. For example,
84 percent of gray-matter regions and 86 percent of white-matter regions
involved with intellectual performance in women were found in the brain's
frontal lobes, compared to 45 percent and zero percent for males, respectively.
The gray matter driving male intellectual performance is distributed throughout
more of the brain.

According to the researchers, this more centralized intelligence processing in
women is consistent with clinical findings that frontal brain injuries can be
more detrimental to cognitive performance in women than men. Studies such as
these, Haier and Jung add, someday may help lead to earlier diagnoses of brain
disorders in males and females, as well as more effective and precise treatment
protocols to address damage to particular regions in the brain.

For this study, UCI and UNM combined their respective neuroimaging technology
and subject pools to study brain morphology with magnetic resonance imaging. MRI
scanning and cognitive testing involved subjects at UCI and UNM. Using a
technique called voxel-based morphometry, Haier and his UCI colleagues converted
these MRI pictures into structural brain "maps" that correlated brain tissue
volume with IQ.

Dr. Michael T. Alkire and Kevin Head of UCI and Ronald A. Yeo of UNM
participated in the study, which was supported in part by the National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development.

About the University of California, Irvine: The University of California, Irvine
is a top-ranked public university dedicated to research, scholarship and
community service. Founded in 1965, UCI is among the fastest-growing University
of California campuses, with more than 24,000 undergraduate and graduate
students and about 1,400 faculty members. The second-largest employer in dynamic
Orange County, UCI contributes an annual economic impact of $3 billion.

From:	Nichevo
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	23 Jan 2005 14:17:41 -0800

>I guess this is shitty reasoning too, in your book:
>From TFA:
"This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of
the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring
more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at
.... language..."
Thanks for providing proof for my argument...

From:	Jo Schaper
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:50:13 -0600

Nichevo wrote:

>>I guess this is shitty reasoning too, in your book:
>
>>From TFA:
> "This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of
> the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring
> more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at
> ... language..."
> Thanks for providing proof for my argument...
>

I guess I'm still really confused by one thing:

What difference does it make if "some" men tend to excel at one thing,
and "some" women tend to excel at another?

Some men are atrocious at math and some women are awful writers. I
understand from anecdotal evidence (from my 9th grade female algebra
teacher) Einstein began horridly at algebra, and Thomas Edison was
considered uneducable and would never amount to much.
I doubt if Pablo Picasso were good at either math or science, and if the
only evidence we have are his Cubist paintings, he had some real
problems with rendering space (yes, I know he could draw realistically,
but evidently preferred not to.) And what do you make of William
Shakespeare? Neither scientist nor mathematician, the man is immortal
for his use of language.

No man should have to live the stereotype of 'some men', nor does any
woman have to live the stereotype of 'some women'. You've got to have
more strength of character to buck stereotypes than to go along
passively. Any person who is 'smart' in school finds this out very
early, as the excelling at anything or daring to be different comes with
a social price.

Why can't we all think and act for ourselves, according to our various
talents, like the slogan says, with "being all we can be" as a laudable
goal?

That's the point of this whole brouhaha which hasn't made the least bit
of sense. Who (man or woman, boy or girl) wants to aspire to fulfill a
stereotype as a life's goal?

Or in the immortal word of one of those Simpsons: Duh!

Jo

From:	Nichevo
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	23 Jan 2005 16:25:25 -0800

>I guess I'm still really confused by one thing...
Of course people should judged by their individual merit, anybody who
says different is a prejudiced fool.
BUT
We also can not pretend that fundamental differences do not exist. To
attempt to deny these things simply because they may not be
"politically correct" to some group is ridiculous, and a slippery
slope. We can not cater to the lowest common-denominator simply because
they may choose to construe the facts.

From:	Theo Bromine
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:08:10 -0500

Nichevo wrote:
>>I guess I'm still really confused by one thing...
>
> Of course people should judged by their individual merit, anybody who
> says different is a prejudiced fool.
> BUT
> We also can not pretend that fundamental differences do not exist. To
> attempt to deny these things simply because they may not be
> "politically correct" to some group is ridiculous, and a slippery
> slope. We can not cater to the lowest common-denominator simply because
> they may choose to construe the facts.
>

That depends whether we are looking at differences between individuals
or group averages. When looking at individuals, we must not prejudge,
based on physical characteristics, including gender, when evaluating
people for their suitability for or competence with intellectual tasks.
That is not catering to the lowest common denominator, it is simply
removing prejudice based on irelevant premises,

From:	Jo Schaper
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:46:04 -0600

Nichevo wrote:

>>I guess I'm still really confused by one thing...
>
> Of course people should judged by their individual merit, anybody who
> says different is a prejudiced fool.
> BUT
> We also can not pretend that fundamental differences do not exist. To
> attempt to deny these things simply because they may not be
> "politically correct" to some group is ridiculous, and a slippery
> slope. We can not cater to the lowest common-denominator simply because
> they may choose to construe the facts.
>

That doesn't follow. If you are judging people by individual merit,
their gender should be irrelevant. With the twin exception(s) that men
furnish sperm and women gestate children and those two roles cannot be
interchanged at this time, I know of no other characterististics
(ually related or not) for which there are not examples and
exceptions in both genders.

From:	Nichevo
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	23 Jan 2005 20:29:50 -0800

>That doesn't follow. If you are judging people by individual merit,
>their gender should be irrelevant.

You aren't quite understanding me, I am not claiming that(for example)
men's inate disparity in language ability should be used as a criteria
for anything other than the examination of social trends. Understanding
these differences is very important on a wider social scale, relatively
useless on a personal scale.

From:	Jayne Kulikauskas
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:28:37 -0500

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
news:10v8e8t5b3o61c7@corp.supernews.com...
> Nichevo wrote:
>
> >>I guess this is shitty reasoning too, in your book:
> >
> >>From TFA:
> > "This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of
> > the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring
> > more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at
> > ... language..."
> > Thanks for providing proof for my argument...
> >
>
> I guess I'm still really confused by one thing:
>
> What difference does it make if "some" men tend to excel at one thing,
> and "some" women tend to excel at another?

Because it was a discussion of general trends rather than of individual
rights.

> Some men are atrocious at math and some women are awful writers. I
> understand from anecdotal evidence (from my 9th grade female algebra
> teacher) Einstein began horridly at algebra, and Thomas Edison was
> considered uneducable and would never amount to much.
> I doubt if Pablo Picasso were good at either math or science, and if the
> only evidence we have are his Cubist paintings, he had some real
> problems with rendering space (yes, I know he could draw realistically,
> but evidently preferred not to.) And what do you make of William
> Shakespeare? Neither scientist nor mathematician, the man is immortal
> for his use of language.
>
> No man should have to live the stereotype of 'some men', nor does any
> woman have to live the stereotype of 'some women'. You've got to have
> more strength of character to buck stereotypes than to go along
> passively. Any person who is 'smart' in school finds this out very
> early, as the excelling at anything or daring to be different comes with
> a social price.
>
> Why can't we all think and act for ourselves, according to our various
> talents, like the slogan says, with "being all we can be" as a laudable
> goal?
>
> That's the point of this whole brouhaha which hasn't made the least bit
> of sense. Who (man or woman, boy or girl) wants to aspire to fulfill a
> stereotype as a life's goal?

I suspect the reason it hasn't made sense to you is that you accepted
distorted accounts of what Summers said. Summers was not saying anything
about limiting the opportunites of individuals based on their . He was
talking about the underrepresentation of women in certain fields. He
outlined various factors that might be involved and mentioned that one worth
considering was whether there were innate differences between the es. If
men tend to excel at math, then it is indeed plausible that it could be a
factor in there being more men in certain professions.

It is not about limiting people by stereotypes. It is not about oppressing
women. It is about trying to look at the evidence to determine the truth.

Jayne

From:	Jo Schaper
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:06:15 -0600

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

> "Jo Schaper" wrote in message
> news:10v8e8t5b3o61c7@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Nichevo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I guess this is shitty reasoning too, in your book:
>>>
>>>>From TFA:
>>>"This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of
>>>the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring
>>>more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at
>>>... language..."
>>>Thanks for providing proof for my argument...
>>>
>>
>>I guess I'm still really confused by one thing:
>>
>>What difference does it make if "some" men tend to excel at one thing,
>>and "some" women tend to excel at another?
>
>
> Because it was a discussion of general trends rather than of individual
> rights.

I guess that's the point. I simply don't care about so-called general
trends, because people aren't general trends--they are individuals. When
you make a statement that because there is a general trend for all men
to be X and all women to be Y, you are implying that by being a member
of class X or class Y, that the individual will also be X or Y. Which is
a logical falsehood. Now, if all men must be X, then all men must be
X. Period. No exceptions. And that is patently not true in the case
under consideration.

If you 'make excuses' for one gender or the other, based on 'general
trends' you are dangerously close to proscriptive behavior.
>
>
>>Some men are atrocious at math and some women are awful writers. I
>>understand from anecdotal evidence (from my 9th grade female algebra
>>teacher) Einstein began horridly at algebra, and Thomas Edison was
>>considered uneducable and would never amount to much.
>>I doubt if Pablo Picasso were good at either math or science, and if the
>>only evidence we have are his Cubist paintings, he had some real
>>problems with rendering space (yes, I know he could draw realistically,
>>but evidently preferred not to.) And what do you make of William
>>Shakespeare? Neither scientist nor mathematician, the man is immortal
>>for his use of language.
>>
>>No man should have to live the stereotype of 'some men', nor does any
>>woman have to live the stereotype of 'some women'. You've got to have
>>more strength of character to buck stereotypes than to go along
>>passively. Any person who is 'smart' in school finds this out very
>>early, as the excelling at anything or daring to be different comes with
>>a social price.
>>
>>Why can't we all think and act for ourselves, according to our various
>>talents, like the slogan says, with "being all we can be" as a laudable
>>goal?
>>
>>That's the point of this whole brouhaha which hasn't made the least bit
>>of sense. Who (man or woman, boy or girl) wants to aspire to fulfill a
>>stereotype as a life's goal?
>
>
> I suspect the reason it hasn't made sense to you is that you accepted
> distorted accounts of what Summers said. Summers was not saying anything
> about limiting the opportunites of individuals based on their . He was
> talking about the underrepresentation of women in certain fields. He
> outlined various factors that might be involved and mentioned that one worth
> considering was whether there were innate differences between the es. If
> men tend to excel at math, then it is indeed plausible that it could be a
> factor in there being more men in certain professions.

First of all, you are misinterpreting my assessment of Mr. Summers'
statement. Secondly, (and others have noted this), Mr. Summers has
repeatedly apologized for the insensitivity of his statement. If there
were nothing questionable about his statement, he would not have been on
the hot-seat to apologize. Thirdly, 'innate differences' (as opposed to
environmental/educational/societal learned behaviours) would be hard
to prove unless one were willing to isolate large numbers of children
from birth and bring them up in a controlled environment like lab
animals, and it is quite unlikely that this will happen. Unless this
happens, there will always be an element of uncertainty in the nature vs
nurture argument. This is not a new idea; there is plenty of science
fiction about creche babies raised this way for just this reason, and
people have been speculating about it for far longer than science
fiction has existed.

>
> It is not about limiting people by stereotypes. It is not about oppressing
> women. It is about trying to look at the evidence to determine the truth.

Unfortunately, even the researchers people have cited do not look at
'the whole truth', just their statistical sample of it, which is often
skewed. I did not say it was about 'oppressing women.' It could just as
easily be about oppressing linguistically disadvantaged males. But the
point is: why treat people as groups at all, except as psychological
amusement and career enhancement for some researcher?

I don't buy the deal that we're going to solve dementia bu figuring out
innate genderbased differences in human brains. Folks with dementia are
of both genders.

From:	Nichevo
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	23 Jan 2005 20:21:45 -0800

>I guess that's the point. I simply don't care about so-called general
>trends, because people aren't general trends--they are individuals.
When
>you make a statement that because there is a general trend for all men

>to be X and all women to be Y, you are implying that by being a member

>of class X or class Y, that the individual will also be X or Y. Which
is
>a logical falsehood. Now, if all men must be X, then all men must be
>X. Period. No exceptions. And that is patently not true in the case
>under consideration.
Except that no-one seems to be making any statements like the one
outlined above(which is a non sequitur).

From:	Friar Broccoli
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	23 Jan 2005 16:25:48 -0800

Jo Schaper wrote:
> I guess I'm still really confused by one thing:
>
> What difference does it make if "some" men tend to excel at one
thing,
> and "some" women tend to excel at another?

.......

> That's the point of this whole brouhaha which hasn't made the least
bit
> of sense. Who (man or woman, boy or girl) wants to aspire to fulfill
a
> stereotype as a life's goal?

Depends on your intention. For an individual this stuff is largely
irrelevant, however this particular discussion got started with respect
to a social policy issue. If the brains of men and women really are
different then it is probably appropriate that they be treated somewhat
differently in school in order to achieve the best result for society
(healthier economy / lower crime rate ...).

Cordially;

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:39:09 GMT

"Nichevo" wrote in message
news:1106518661.187720.122900@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >I guess this is shitty reasoning too, in your book:
>>From TFA:
> "This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of
> the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring
> more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at
> ... language..."
> Thanks for providing proof for my argument...

Of course, if you had contiued to read the next sentence, you would have found
that the co-author also sad that "These two very different neurological pathways
and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad
measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests." Your
argument fails again.

From:	Nichevo
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	23 Jan 2005 20:15:00 -0800

>Of course, if you had contiued to read the next sentence, you would
have found
>that the co-author also sad that "

"result in equivalent ***overall*** performance"

Please point out where I said that woman's *overall* intelligences were
less than mens???
Until then, shut your fucking mouth.
Thanks.

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:08:06 GMT

"Nichevo" wrote in message
news:1106540100.369236.251070@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >Of course, if you had contiued to read the next sentence, you would
> have found
>>that the co-author also sad that "
>
> "result in equivalent ***overall*** performance"
>
> Please point out where I said that woman's *overall* intelligences were
> less than mens???
> Until then, shut your fucking mouth.
> Thanks.

So you always get this upset when someone proves you wrong?

From:	Friar Broccoli
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	23 Jan 2005 13:32:08 -0800

Nichevo wrote:
> >Why is that fact so important to your over-inflated ego?
> To tell you the truth, this particular fact is not at all important
to
> me. I just have a fundamental dislike for shitty reasoning. It is
> obvious that my initial post here was not to be taken seriously. You
> obviously lack some chemical to detect these nuances. I am guessing
> that your wife is probably whoring around on you with someone who has
> some intellect, hence the sensitivity. You couldn't blame her
really...

This type of personal public attack is not appropriate. Anywhere,
anytime, any circumstances.

From:	Jayne Kulikauskas
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:48:36 -0500

"Friar Broccoli" wrote in message
news:1106515928.214325.262450@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nichevo wrote:
> > George wrote:
> > >Why is that fact so important to your over-inflated ego?
>>
> > To tell you the truth, this particular
> > fact is not at all important to
> > me. I just have a fundamental dislike
> > for shitty reasoning. It is
> > obvious that my initial post here
> > was not to be taken seriously. You
> > obviously lack some chemical to
> > detect these nuances. I am guessing
> > that your wife is probably whoring
> > around on you with someone who has
> > some intellect, hence the sensitivity.
> > You couldn't blame her really...
>
> This type of personal public attack is not appropriate. Anywhere,
> anytime, any circumstances.

I agree. On the hand, I have seen a lot of posts by George that were
deliberately offensive and abusive. It is not really surprising when people
reply in kind. I suspect that at some level George wants this kind of
interaction, since he appears to invite it.

Jayne

From:	Susan Cohen
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:12:44 GMT

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
news:35ird8F4ln2p7U1@individual.net...
>
> "Friar Broccoli" wrote in message
> news:1106515928.214325.262450@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Nichevo wrote:
>> > George wrote:
>> > >Why is that fact so important to your over-inflated ego?
>>>
>> > To tell you the truth, this particular
>> > fact is not at all important to
>> > me. I just have a fundamental dislike
>> > for shitty reasoning. It is
>> > obvious that my initial post here
>> > was not to be taken seriously. You
>> > obviously lack some chemical to
>> > detect these nuances. I am guessing
>> > that your wife is probably whoring
>> > around on you with someone who has
>> > some intellect, hence the sensitivity.
>> > You couldn't blame her really...
>>
>> This type of personal public attack is not appropriate. Anywhere,
>> anytime, any circumstances.
>
> I agree. On the hand, I have seen a lot of posts by George that were
> deliberately offensive and abusive. It is not really surprising when
> people
> reply in kind. I suspect that at some level George wants this kind of
> interaction, since he appears to invite it.

I have never seen george initiate the offensiveness or the abuse.
Juat because other people might miss something that was said to him first
does not mean it was never said.

Susan

From:	Nichevo
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	23 Jan 2005 13:47:41 -0800

>This type of personal public attack is not appropriate. Anywhere,
>anytime, any circumstances.
I know, it was quite rude of him wasn't it?

From:	Friar Broccoli
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	22 Jan 2005 07:29:01 -0800

>> George wrote:
>>
>>> Are you suggesting that engineering is the only discipline that
>>> that makes use of complex math? If not, then certainly you must
>>> recognize that something else is behind that statistic.
>
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>> Interesting you should mention math. My son is in 4th year pure
Math
>> at McGill in Montreal. Almost no women there either. You seem to
be
>> suggesting there is a conspiracy here somewhere. Could you explain
it
>> to me?

George wrote:

> My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point
is?

I was NOT making a point. From your posts you appear to me to be
suggesting that there is some type of clear social explanation for
the low participation of women in math and engineering. I am asking
for a coherent defence/explanation of that position.

Pointing out that there are exceptions or implying (as SOMEONE ELSE
did) that I support the mass murder of women for ASKING for an
explanation does not advance anyone's understanding.
Do you have a case to make?

Cordially;

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:22:07 GMT

"Friar Broccoli" wrote in message
news:1106407741.130414.221360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> George wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that engineering is the only discipline that
>>>> that makes use of complex math? If not, then certainly you must
>>>> recognize that something else is behind that statistic.
>>
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting you should mention math. My son is in 4th year pure
> Math
>>> at McGill in Montreal. Almost no women there either. You seem to
> be
>>> suggesting there is a conspiracy here somewhere. Could you explain
> it
>>> to me?
>
> George wrote:
>
>> My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point
> is?
>
> I was NOT making a point. From your posts you appear to me to be
> suggesting that there is some type of clear social explanation for
> the low participation of women in math and engineering. I am asking
> for a coherent defence/explanation of that position.
>
> Pointing out that there are exceptions or implying (as SOMEONE ELSE
> did) that I support the mass murder of women for ASKING for an
> explanation does not advance anyone's understanding.
> Do you have a case to make?
>
>
> Cordially;

Yes. I've been making the case ever since the issue came up. Perhaps your
could start by reading some of my previous posts since I don't think it is
necessary to repeat myself everytime someone else enters the conversation.

From:	Jo Schaper
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:39:53 -0600

Friar Broccoli wrote:

>>>George wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are you suggesting that engineering is the only discipline that
>>>>that makes use of complex math? If not, then certainly you must
>>>>recognize that something else is behind that statistic.
>>
>>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Interesting you should mention math. My son is in 4th year pure
>
> Math
>
>>>at McGill in Montreal. Almost no women there either. You seem to
>
> be
>
>>>suggesting there is a conspiracy here somewhere. Could you explain
>
> it
>
>>>to me?
>
>
> George wrote:
>
>
>>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point
>
> is?
>
> I was NOT making a point. From your posts you appear to me to be
> suggesting that there is some type of clear social explanation for
> the low participation of women in math and engineering. I am asking
> for a coherent defence/explanation of that position.

Yes there is. Women would rather be with people of both genders with
wider general interests, and fewer prejudices than math majors and
engineers in school, work and social contexts. I dated a fellow for a
couple of years who was a math genius. Literally. His computational,
math-logical and spatial abilities were off the scale. This was, as he
openly admitted, due to a brain deformity at birth, which had to be
surgically corrected in order for him to survive, and which left him
mathematically brilliant, but with the inability to comprehend some
social and verbal behaviors. He couldn't help being how he was,and had
made great strides in trying to compensate for his difficulties. Nice
fellow, generally, but no one I could imagine as a permanent partner, or
even a co-worker. We both eventually moved on.

I could name a string of adjectives why women find fellows who are very
linearly-thought oriented absolutely impossible to understand or
communicate with. I think the lack of women in the fields have to do
with the deductive (straight-line) thought requirements of conventional
math and engineering . Life is hassle-y enough--why insist on unneeded
grief? I am sure the converse is true of males who think only in narrow
tracks, and pull at their remaining hair when a woman approaches a
problem holistically, as a gestalt, instead of as an additive process.
As a grade-schooler I could look at a problem and know the right answer.
But the teacher insisted that I go through this six or ten line process
on paper--invariably error would creep in, and it would become the
'wrong' answer.

I agree that many men think naturally in straight lines, and many women
think in webs, or clusters, or other non-linear geometries. That's
likely bio-chemistry based. However, it is (male-dominated) society
which has defined that linear thinking is a good thing, and non-linear
thinking is a bad thing. So why should an intelligent woman not put her
energy into fields where non-linear thinking is rewarded?

The other thing which folks seem to not comprehend is, mentally at
least, 'biology is not destiny'. Education,desire, practice and
application can overcome brain chemistry, nuture, and social prejudice
if one is determined enough, and the bar is not continually raised so
often that the seeker becomes discouraged, loses desire, and drops out.
There is still an awful lot of discouragement going on in higher
education--it is often a weeding process, not an education process.

You fellows are asking the wrong questions, based on a male paradigm.
The difference seems to be since women have always been asked to 'fit
in' to the male paradigm of math, science and engineering, and not
encouraged to bring their own strengths to those fields, all of us are
poorer for it. We can at least imagine what the problem is, because
we've beat our heads on it for years. Some men either are dismissive and
say there is no problem with the setup, or they actively discourage
female participation, for fear they will change the rules with which
they are comfortable. Notice I said, "some men". There are others who
understand what I am talking about.

Jo

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:15:49 GMT

"Jo Schaper" wrote in message
news:10v50fr949pe508@corp.supernews.com...
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>>>>George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Are you suggesting that engineering is the only discipline that
>>>>>that makes use of complex math? If not, then certainly you must
>>>>>recognize that something else is behind that statistic.
>>>
>>>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Interesting you should mention math. My son is in 4th year pure
>>
>> Math
>>
>>>>at McGill in Montreal. Almost no women there either. You seem to
>>
>> be
>>
>>>>suggesting there is a conspiracy here somewhere. Could you explain
>>
>> it
>>
>>>>to me?
>>
>>
>> George wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My wife has a degree in math and a degree in geology. So your point
>>
>> is?
>>
>> I was NOT making a point. From your posts you appear to me to be
>> suggesting that there is some type of clear social explanation for
>> the low participation of women in math and engineering. I am asking
>> for a coherent defence/explanation of that position.
>
> Yes there is. Women would rather be with people of both genders with
> wider general interests, and fewer prejudices than math majors and
> engineers in school, work and social contexts. I dated a fellow for a
> couple of years who was a math genius. Literally. His computational,
> math-logical and spatial abilities were off the scale. This was, as he
> openly admitted, due to a brain deformity at birth, which had to be
> surgically corrected in order for him to survive, and which left him
> mathematically brilliant, but with the inability to comprehend some
> social and verbal behaviors. He couldn't help being how he was,and had
> made great strides in trying to compensate for his difficulties. Nice
> fellow, generally, but no one I could imagine as a permanent partner, or
> even a co-worker. We both eventually moved on.
>
> I could name a string of adjectives why women find fellows who are very
> linearly-thought oriented absolutely impossible to understand or
> communicate with. I think the lack of women in the fields have to do
> with the deductive (straight-line) thought requirements of conventional
> math and engineering . Life is hassle-y enough--why insist on unneeded
> grief? I am sure the converse is true of males who think only in narrow
> tracks, and pull at their remaining hair when a woman approaches a
> problem holistically, as a gestalt, instead of as an additive process.
> As a grade-schooler I could look at a problem and know the right answer.
> But the teacher insisted that I go through this six or ten line process
> on paper--invariably error would creep in, and it would become the
> 'wrong' answer.
>
> I agree that many men think naturally in straight lines, and many women
> think in webs, or clusters, or other non-linear geometries. That's
> likely bio-chemistry based. However, it is (male-dominated) society
> which has defined that linear thinking is a good thing, and non-linear
> thinking is a bad thing. So why should an intelligent woman not put her
> energy into fields where non-linear thinking is rewarded?
>
> The other thing which folks seem to not comprehend is, mentally at
> least, 'biology is not destiny'. Education,desire, practice and
> application can overcome brain chemistry, nuture, and social prejudice
> if one is determined enough, and the bar is not continually raised so
> often that the seeker becomes discouraged, loses desire, and drops out.
> There is still an awful lot of discouragement going on in higher
> education--it is often a weeding process, not an education process.
>
> You fellows are asking the wrong questions, based on a male paradigm.
> The difference seems to be since women have always been asked to 'fit
> in' to the male paradigm of math, science and engineering, and not
> encouraged to bring their own strengths to those fields, all of us are
> poorer for it. We can at least imagine what the problem is, because
> we've beat our heads on it for years. Some men either are dismissive and
> say there is no problem with the setup, or they actively discourage
> female participation, for fear they will change the rules with which
> they are comfortable. Notice I said, "some men". There are others who
> understand what I am talking about.
>
> Jo

Good post, Jo. You've got my vote.

From:	Andrew Arensburger
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:44:33 +0000 (UTC)

In talk.origins Jo Schaper wrote:
> The other thing which folks seem to not comprehend is, mentally at
> least, 'biology is not destiny'. Education,desire, practice and
> application can overcome brain chemistry, nuture, and social prejudice
> if one is determined enough

This might be relevant:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4458519

Unfortunately, I didn't get to hear the full report, but the
part that I caught said that someone had performed an experiment in
which a math test was administered to two groups. One group was told
that the test would likely show differences between men and women. In
that group, women did more poorly than in the control group.

--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Fundamental Mistakes in the design of the World's User Interface, #3217:
Elevators don't have CANCEL buttons.

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:10:56 GMT

"Andrew Arensburger" wrote in message
news:csva3h$rmi$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> In talk.origins Jo Schaper wrote:
>> The other thing which folks seem to not comprehend is, mentally at
>> least, 'biology is not destiny'. Education,desire, practice and
>> application can overcome brain chemistry, nuture, and social prejudice
>> if one is determined enough
>
> This might be relevant:
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4458519
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't get to hear the full report, but the
> part that I caught said that someone had performed an experiment in
> which a math test was administered to two groups. One group was told
> that the test would likely show differences between men and women. In
> that group, women did more poorly than in the control group.
>

Here is a new article that just came out. Everyone should read this, as it is
relevant to the discussion:

http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1261

Intelligence in men and women is a gray and white matter

Men and women use different brain areas to achieve similar IQ results, UCI study
finds

Irvine, Calif. , January 20, 2005
While there are essentially no disparities in general intelligence between the
es, a UC Irvine study has found significant differences in brain areas where
males and females manifest their intelligence.

The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray matter related
to intellectual skill, revealing that no single neuroanatomical structure
determines general intelligence and that different types of brain designs are
capable of producing equivalent intellectual performance.

"These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of
brains designed for equally intelligent behavior," said Richard Haier, professor
of psychology in the Department of Pediatrics and longtime human intelligence
researcher, who led the study with colleagues at UCI and the University of New
Mexico. "In addition, by pinpointing these gender-based intelligence areas, the
study has the potential to aid research on dementia and other
cognitive-impairment diseases in the brain."

Study results appear on the online version of NeuroImage.

In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related
to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of
white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents
information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the
networking of - or connections between - these processing centers.

This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study,
may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local
processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and
assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such
as required for language facility. These two very different neurological
pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance
on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence
tests.

The study also identified regional differences with intelligence. For example,
84 percent of gray-matter regions and 86 percent of white-matter regions
involved with intellectual performance in women were found in the brain's
frontal lobes, compared to 45 percent and zero percent for males, respectively.
The gray matter driving male intellectual performance is distributed throughout
more of the brain.

According to the researchers, this more centralized intelligence processing in
women is consistent with clinical findings that frontal brain injuries can be
more detrimental to cognitive performance in women than men. Studies such as
these, Haier and Jung add, someday may help lead to earlier diagnoses of brain
disorders in males and females, as well as more effective and precise treatment
protocols to address damage to particular regions in the brain.

For this study, UCI and UNM combined their respective neuroimaging technology
and subject pools to study brain morphology with magnetic resonance imaging. MRI
scanning and cognitive testing involved subjects at UCI and UNM. Using a
technique called voxel-based morphometry, Haier and his UCI colleagues converted
these MRI pictures into structural brain "maps" that correlated brain tissue
volume with IQ.

Dr. Michael T. Alkire and Kevin Head of UCI and Ronald A. Yeo of UNM
participated in the study, which was supported in part by the National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development.

From:	Friar Broccoli
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	22 Jan 2005 12:30:17 -0800

Hi Jo Schaper;

Your response was so interesting and well written, that I feel required
to
reply.

Before beginning my main comments, I want to specifically respond to
one
of your comments:

> As a grade-schooler I could look at a problem and know the right
answer.
> But the teacher insisted that I go through this six or ten line
process
> on paper--invariably error would creep in, and it would become the
> 'wrong' answer.

I had similar experiences during early schooling. I remember that I
always knew intuitively which fractions were bigger (say 3/8 vs 7/19).
To prove that I was cheating the teacher asked me some problems in open
class, and then said I'd been very lucky when I got them right.

The foregoing (in case you missed it) was a shameless attempt to
emphasis our similarities so that you will be more sympathetic with my
views which follow:

Natural Selection & Male Variability

The reply you gave appears to reflect one aspect of the truth. Another
way of capturing part of the truth (I hope) is to look at this question
from the point of view of natural selection (I am posting from
Talk.Origins).

Dr. Summers mentioned that men tend to have a wider distribution of
intelligences than women, who tend to be closer to the average. That
makes a lot of sense within some evolutionary frameworks. To survive
as
a species it is good if we can reproduce rapidly; while at the same
time
efficiently select for the best genetic material, ie: keep the good
stuff and dump the junk.

During the past 525 million years of our evolution females have played
an obvious roll in rapid reproduction. The male roll has been more to
spread the occasional positive mutation throughout the entire species
so that all lineages can benefit.

In such a system it makes sense to have almost all the females
reproducing, but only the males with the "best" material doing so.
This means that most active selection is taking place in the male
lines.
Women select for movie and rock stars, successful politicians and
business men, etc. and dump loosers like Mark Lapine.

In most species most of the time, this means that being a female is a
comparatively safe bet reproductively, while being a male is an all or
nothing game.

This in turn suggests that females should express their genes
conservatively, in ways that minimise risk: in general, being
exceptionally strong, fast, or in this case intelligent, is not going
to
do much to increase their reproductive success, especially if such
expression carries downside risk.

For example: female brains are said to be more bilaterally symmetric
than
male brains. If something goes wrong on one side, they have a good
backup.

Males on the other hand can be expected to express their genes
aggressively, because if they can stand out from the crowd they can
significantly boast their reproductive success. Consequently their
brains tend to be much more asymmetric. If everything works well,
they're big winners, but if something is not quite right they're
screwed.

Such aggressive expression has a beneficial side effect for the
species.
Male defects are more obvious, making it easier for females to select
the best fathers.

The above analysis also suggests that there should be behavioral
consequences. Females derive relatively little reproductive benefit
from being exceptional performers in the areas of business, politics,
and entertainment. On the other hand, a male who rises to the top of a
large corporation, or university etc, can expect to father many
children. Looked at this way, it makes sense for a man to put in 80
hour weeks to get there. Why should a woman bother?

Caveats:

* I believe the foregoing to be correct, but I don't know if it is.
* If correct, it does NOT make me happy. I have a truth obsession.
* To the extent that it is correct, it reflects only one aspect of many
larger realities.

Cordially;

From:	Féachadóir
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:55:57 +0000

Scríobh "Friar Broccoli" :

>During the past 525 million years of our evolution females have played
>an obvious roll in rapid reproduction. The male roll has been more to
>spread the occasional positive mutation throughout the entire species
>so that all lineages can benefit.

Everyone should enjoy a nice roll in the hay every now and again

--
"Ná sáruigther Seinglenn
aitreb na lec nime"
© Féachadóir

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard's president apologizes
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:13:30 GMT

"Féachadóir" wrote in message
news:jsi5v09rqr3elbkl22pv7ll6icg0fmp9h2@4ax.com...
> Scríobh "Friar Broccoli" :
>
>>During the past 525 million years of our evolution females have played
>>an obvious roll in rapid reproduction. The male roll has been more to
>>spread the occasional positive mutation throughout the entire species
>>so that all lineages can benefit.
>
> Everyone should enjoy a nice roll in the hay every now and again
>
> --
> "Ná sáruigther Seinglenn
> aitreb na lec nime"
> © Féachadóir

Unless you are allergic to hay.