A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Gattigap]

For the liberal geeks among us:


Bumper sticker seen today on the hippie-dippie streets of Venice Beach:

FRODO FAILED
BUSH HAS THE RING


Unsurprisingly, its bearer* was a dirty, white VW Vanagon with vanity plates reading "SMEEGOL."

Carry on.





*The bumper sticker's, that is.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not all that concerned with the merits, mainly, because the answer is probably currently outside our knowledge base. What bothers me is the the circling of the wagons of the thought police.

So then you're not really asking if others think that Summers was wrong. You're asking if others think that the reaction to his comments was wrong.

aV

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by andViolins
So then you're not really asking if others think that Summers was wrong. You're asking if others think that the reaction to his comments was wrong.

aV

I'm not asking if he was wrong on the substantive point. I'm asking whether he, as an academic, was wrong to openly consider what could possibly be true, as well as the reaction.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not all that concerned with the merits, mainly, because the answer is probably currently outside our knowledge base. What bothers me is the the circling of the wagons of the thought police.

Isn't that to be expected? Summers had already pissed people off, and now it's time to pile on.

That said, I don't think the answer is necessarily outside possible knowledge. It's possible to design cross-subject and cross-cultural data to try to gain insight as to whether "inate" differences in the way minds work might be an explanation. But I would guess that some people don't want to see such a study, because they have an interest in the continuation of "antidiscrimination" policies.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not asking if he was wrong on the substantive point. I'm asking whether he, as an academic, was wrong to openly consider what could possibly be true, as well as the reaction.

In reading the transcript, he seemed to go beyond posing the question, and posited the answer, without any real support (the excerpt I read, IIRC, basically was "there are three possible reasons--it can't be discrim., because we've taken steps to root that out; it might be a bit hours, but we see women achieve succes in other fields, so that's probably not it; third is inate differences, and because the other explanations are out, this must be the dominant reason." Uh, yeah, that's logical reasoning.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
For the liberal geeks among us:


Bumper sticker seen today on the hippie-dippie streets of Venice Beach:

FRODO FAILED
BUSH HAS THE RING


Unsurprisingly, its bearer* was a dirty, white VW Vanagon with vanity plates reading "SMEEGOL."

Carry on.





*The bumper sticker's, that is.

that makes Clinton Gollum or bilbo?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That said, I don't think the answer is necessarily outside possible knowledge. It's possible to design cross-subject and cross-cultural data to try to gain insight as to whether "inate" differences in the way minds work might be an explanation. But I would guess that some people don't want to see such a study, because they have an interest in the continuation of "antidiscrimination" policies.

But how do you design around cultural/societal forces?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But how do you design around cultural/societal forces?

cross-cultural studies are a useful approach. For example, one might look at success rates of women becoming scientists in other cultures. If they differ, then perhaps culture is to explain. If they're the same, then perhaps it's inate differences. Or a universal culture. But one could at least take a first whack at the question.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But how do you design around cultural/societal forces?

You have to incorporate them into the design methodology and do cross-cutrual studies over a long time and many societies. I can guarantee that you're going to end up seeing a lot more women scientists in some cultures than others (not necessarily this one).

ETA:

You're also going to have to look at the way boys and girls are encouraged early on, and you're going to have to look at education methods.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not asking if he was wrong on the substantive point. I'm asking whether he, as an academic, was wrong to openly consider what could possibly be true, as well as the reaction.

Read the transcipt. Summers sat there arrogantly spewing unsupported prejudices in front of a group of intelligent and analytical scientists. This is what Harvard faculty do in front of students, but not what the President does in front of faculty.

ETA: I'm serious in this point. Institutionally, Summers has a very different role to play, and part of what he undermines is the idea that a standard of academic rigour ought to apply in an institution like Harvard. Granted, that standard has been worn down over the years (cf. the neo-cons for an example today), but he really just trashed it entirely.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I have a crazy prediction to make based on flimsy evidence.

As women come into science more full force, they will begin making a disproportionate share of the significant new breakthroughs. This is based on my observations of my daughter and son, who think in very different ways about science and about how things work. The daughter is more often surprising to me in her perspective, thinking about something very differently than I (or my male, software engineer friends).

Men are very yesterday. Yes, for one reason or another, women think differently. But the way men think is played out and over-mined.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You have to incorporate them into the design methodology and do cross-cutrual studies over a long time and many societies. I can guarantee that you're going to end up seeing a lot more women scientists in some cultures than others (not necessarily this one).

ETA:

You're also going to have to look at the way boys and girls are encouraged early on, and you're going to have to look at education methods.

And at the end of the day, the results are going to be inconclusive. There are just far too many variables.

Personally, I think it is more of a matter of interest than anything else, but that may be affected by societal pressure as well.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And at the end of the day, the results are going to be inconclusive. There are just far too many variables.

Personally, I think it is more of a matter of interest than anything else, but that may be affected by societal pressure as well.

The only way to say for sure is to raise kids in a society vacuum and see what happens, and I'm not sure you'd get IRB approval for that.

I do think that men and women think differently, and it'd probably be really interesting to see how that's impacted in their work. I deal with men and women scientists on a regular basis, and they're all a pain in the ass when you're trying to get them to be compliant.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Read the transcipt. Summers sat there arrogantly spewing unsupported prejudices in front of a group of intelligent and analytical scientists. This is what Harvard faculty do in front of students, but not what the President does in front of faculty.

“In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong...”

The effing arrogant cad! Doesn't he know that we've already figured out the math gap in junior high?

Oh, wait, we haven't? . . . .

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Men are very yesterday. Yes, for one reason or another, women think differently. But the way men think is played out and over-mined.

You effing, arrogant cad!

(Um, this is basically what Summers said.)