A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
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 agree -- also, I think that people overlook that when they say things like "women don't conceptualize math the same way as men" that there's a continuum, and that there are going to be individual women who conceptualize math the way an average male does, and that there are going to be individual men who conceptualize math the way the average woman does.

While the Summers stuff was still big in the news, I happened to grab a very very old Newsweek to read at lunch and it had a (couple? few?) piece(s) on how looking at brain waves and the differing abilities of men and women to figure out stuff like spatial relations vs. what people's feelings are by looking at a picture of just their eyes, autistic kids are like super-"male"s and, as one might expect, the vast majority of autistic kids are male. There was also a little sidebar or mention of some opposite-of-autistic thing where a person is extremely empathic but has no clue about spatial relations (or whatever).

Anyway, basically I find all of this very interesting. I definitely, definitely agree that there are, on a general level, sex-linked differences in how people process information.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Carry on.

Or, if you're not a LOTR fan, you may like the real-world themed bumper sticker that someone passed along in response:

"I never thought I'd miss Nixon."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
“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? . . . .

His mistakes:

(1) Whether he likes it or not, he speaks for an institution; he needs to think about how his position impacts Harvard's recruitment of potential faculty members in the audience; he doesn't have the freedom that Harvard faculty have to be idiots and not get called on it

(2) He concludes that both discrimination and socialization are "lesser" - As we say on this board, "cite please".

(3) He suggests science and engineering are "special cases" - why? Again, cite please.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
“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? . . . .

The "I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong" is the arrogant asshole miscalculation. He in no way thinks he's going to be proven wrong, and he deosn't care. THAT was his opportunity to act like a leader and discuss the strides the women at the conference have made, blah blah blah, and the new outlook they bring, blah blah blah, blah blah blah. He's not a fucking (what is WITH you and the "effing"? Christ.) researcher in the area, obviously; he was there to give the message that the administration recognizes that this convention or whatever is important/worthy/what have you.

What he did is like the Queen going to Charles and Camilla's wedding and giving a toast that discusses how people who divorce are irredeemable sinners. OK, not that bad, but you get the drift.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
You effing, arrogant cad!

(Um, this is basically what Summers said.)

Not quite. Sommers statement implies that Science as it is now practiced is good and correct and male, the last being unfortunate but unavoidable. My statement implies that women will bring into science things that will make it better. But both statements begin from a position of accepting the idea that there may be differences in the way many men and many women think about things.

Sommers is looking at it from a biased perspective. Not surprisingly, a biased male perspective.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
"I never thought I'd miss Nixon."

*sniff*

[Replaced_Texan]

So.

Houston politics are theoretically non-partisan. No one runs for office under the ageis of one political party or the other. Last year, the GOP made an effort to concentrate power and they fucked up on the mayor side (ran two people for awhile, then one dropped out, and the one left was a complete moron), but got a majority of the seats on City Council.

The guy who ended up winning as mayor is what the Houston Press describes as Best Identity Crisis:

• He's a lawyer-turned-businessman and Bill Clinton's former deputy secretary of energy. He was able to attract prominent Republicans to his campaign for mayor, and he won 62 percent of the vote in the runoff that got him elected. But who is Bill White? Is he the liberal Clinton appointee fighting to find health insurance money for Houston children, or is he the conservative fighting against his so-called liberal union base to cut the pensions of city employees? Is Mayor White the man willing to take on conservatives with his traffic mobility plans -- including tow-truck regulation -- or the one who shows a willingness to take on the powerful unions -- like the police union -- by appointing outsiders to run departments? The mayor keeps the usually combative City Council under control, and so far he's found a way to appeal to the loyal audiences of Bob Lanier, Lee Brown and the Bushes. But if he ever settles on an identity, that may quickly change.

According to the Burnt Orange Report, his last approval rating was around 76 percent.

Today, there's a hysterical article in the Houston Chronicle about the GOP being pissed off as hell that their flunkies on City Council *gasp* support the mayor! I guess bipartisan support and actually getting stuff done aren't core GOP values.

[ltl/fb]

From BNA

With the advent of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the public sector will account for a record half of the nation's health care spending by 2014, according to a study issued Feb. 23 by economists and actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The Medicare drug benefit, scheduled to begin in 2006, will have little affect on overall health spending or spending on prescription drugs but it will foster a substantial shift from the private sector to the public sector, according to the study, released by the journal Health Affairs.

By 2014, public sector programs such as Medicare and Medicaid will account for 49.4 percent of total U.S. health care spending, "a record share that could have important implications for the budget as a whole," the study report said.

"With its forecasted share approaching half of total health spending in 2014, the public sector will feel more deeply the financial burden associated with supplying health care benefits to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries," it said.

Public sector spending on health care was 45.7 percent of total health spending in 2004, it said.

This shift in the source of payment for health care is due in large part to the Medicare drug benefit, according to the study. Medicare is expected to constitute 28 percent of total drug spending in 2006, the first year of the benefit, up from 2 percent in 2005.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
His mistakes:

(1) Whether he likes it or not, he speaks for an institution; he needs to think about how his position impacts Harvard's recruitment of potential faculty members in the audience; he doesn't have the freedom that Harvard faculty have to be idiots and not get called on it

(2) He concludes that both discrimination and socialization are "lesser" - As we say on this board, "cite please".

(3) He suggests science and engineering are "special cases" - why? Again, cite please.

First, he told them, ahead of time, that there were very special conditions under which he would appear - and I believe one of them was that he not be invited as giving an institutional representation.

Second, he posits. He throws something out for discussion. These are not settled issues. Can he only say something like that once it's proven?

Finally, I think what he meant by "special cases" is that the gender stats in those two fields aer so different from other fields.

What he really said was, "there seems to be something to the idea that there are biological differences explaining the disparity in numbers. Discuss, please." For this he gets trashed? I don't get it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Sommers statement implies that Science as it is now practiced is good and correct and male, the last being unfortunate but unavoidable.

I've only read parts of the transcript. What I read didn't leave me with this impression. I saw more of a "could this be a reason, as distasteful as we might find it?".

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
With the advent of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the public sector will account for a record half of the nation's health care spending by 2014, according to a study issued Feb. 23 by economists and actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The Medicare drug benefit, scheduled to begin in 2006, will have little affect on overall health spending or spending on prescription drugs but it will foster a substantial shift from the private sector to the public sector, according to the study, released by the journal Health Affairs.

By 2014, public sector programs such as Medicare and Medicaid will account for 49.4 percent of total U.S. health care spending, "a record share that could have important implications for the budget as a whole," the study report said.

That sound, I think, is the thrashing from club's seizure, brought to him by the Bush Administration. Medic!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
That sound, I think, is the thrashing from club's seizure, brought to him by the Bush Administration. Medic!

I'm amused that we are getting the crap side of socialized medicine without any of the advantages. I would say "heh" except it's just . . . so . . . bad.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm amused that we are getting the crap side of socialized medicine without any of the advantages. I would say "heh" except it's just . . . so . . . bad.

It's good you're finding other ways to be amused, now that the whole sex toy thing has been proven to be illegal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I have far less of a problem with job retraining than I do with straight up benefits, which I thought is what he was suggesting.

From an economic perspective, we can assume that the two are fungible, since displaced workers will surely use the money rationally in the way that makes them best off -- perhaps to buy job retraining on the private market.

I have no idea what you meant here.

See Thomas Sowell in Capitalism Magazine ("In defense of individual rights"), here.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's good you're finding other ways to be amused, now that the whole sex toy thing has been proven to be illegal.

I don't distribute. I think the ban is on distribution, not possession. I think I'm under the limit over which you are presumed to be a distributor.