8 ms·

This piece reads like a women's rights article from 10 or 15 years ago. We've moved on from this basic debate between thinking and feeling. To be honest I'm ple

by tsally 16y ago

This piece reads like a women's rights article from 10 or 15 years ago. We've moved on from this basic debate between thinking and feeling. To be honest I'm pleased that most discourse today is at a higher level. I appreciate the author's position, but "women feel, while men think" is essentially a solved debate as far as gender issues go. I don't think even the most idiotic misogynist resorts to that argument anymore (I might be underestimating the idiots). There are so many more opportunities for deep conversation on this issue, so it pains me to see the author take this approach! As an aside, I'll point out any battle for women in science was lost long before women med students had to put up with their misogynistic counterparts. The issue is about the women who didn't make it to med school in the first place.

JulianMorrison 16y ago
"Women own the woo, men own the science" is not a solved problem.
- tsally 16y ago
  Agreed. Were you under the impression I was arguing as such? I'm simply saying "men think and women feel" is a debate we were having a long time ago before the biological arguments for the lack of women in science were refuted. Now that the biological arguments have been proven to have no merit, the issues we need to be looking at are social. Women are not being told they can't do science anymore (that's what the article seems to be suggesting). Instead they're being told they need to look pretty and live up to certain standards of beauty. Living up to these standards is a lot of work for young girls and doesn't leave much time for much else. Men on the other hand can neglect such standards and still be socially accepted. I can't even imagine what a woman would go through if she dressed like your average male engineer.
  - pwhelan 16y ago
    I don't think it is as much being told they cannot do science (as incapable) as much as it is being told they are odd and less desirable (consciously or subconsciously) if they embrace math/science/tech. It also depends on the woman how difficult these standards of beauty are achieving. Many of my female friends are engineers (comp, ee, cheg) and look excellent. Not because they "dress to the nines" but because they put on a little makeup and a nice shirt. The ones who were less accepted socially tended to be those who didn't take care of themselves, including the men.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      It may not be that girls are told they are less desirable if they embrace math/science/tech. I'm very skeptical of that being a widely held belief. It may simply be that girls do not wish to associate with others they perceive as less desirable. http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/0901/pages/geeks/geeks.html http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/0901/pages/geeks/geeks.html
      - pwhelan 16y ago
        True, however there is something saying "the people who do this are less desirable", thus if you do that you are less desirable. Why these people are considered less desirable is debatable. Also, in science don't we include medical personnel? In math, quantitative finance? I would hardly say those people are perceived as less desirable. Also, as a comp sci guy, I don't like the "tolerance for all quirks" thing we have going in some ways. It is great that we are passionate about our stuff, but there is social decorum that we should follow. Showers, general professionalism, and paying attention to how others feel about things -- these should not be considered polite suggestions but requisites.
        lsc 16y ago
        > but there is social decorum that we should follow. really? In business, politics and law, we tolerate a lot of manipulative, egotistical assholes. why shouldn't the nerds get a break on some things, too? If I can save 20 minutes in the morning by throwing on jeans and a T shirt and not messing with my hair, really, what's the problem with that? why should I waste time/money on dressing nicely? Really, I think the fact that nerds aren't held to the same level of 'professional appearance' as others of the same pay grade is that manipulating others, generally speaking, isn't our job. The fact of the matter is, how someone dresses is simply not a good indicator of honesty, skill, or anything else you might actually care about. I know my first impression, when I see someone in a suit, is "who is he trying to impress? and why can't he do it with his skills, rather than his appearance?"
        16y ago
  - bokonist 16y ago
    I'm simply saying "men think and women feel" is a debate we were having a long time ago before the biological arguments for the lack of women in science were refuted. When were the biological arguments refuted? source? From what I've heard, there seems to be more evidence for the biological side now (eg http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/summers-vindica.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07... ).
    - tsally 16y ago
      That's not an accurate description of the research that has been done in the field. There's certainly not "more evidence for the biological side". Mathematical performance on standardized testing is quite similar (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/321/5888/494 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/321/5888/494). When people read that study many are quick to point out that there is greater variance for men than for women, however other studies suggest (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801 http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801) that could certainly be attributed to cultural factors. Just read the abstract: "Using contemporary data from the U.S. and other nations, we address 3 questions: Do gender differences in mathematics performance exist in the general population? Do gender differences exist among the mathematically talented? Do females exist who possess profound mathematical talent? In regard to the first question, contemporary data indicate that girls in the U.S. have reached parity with boys in mathematics performance, a pattern that is found in some other nations as well. Focusing on the second question, studies find more males than females scoring above the 95th or 99th percentile, but this gender gap has significantly narrowed over time in the U.S. and is not found among some ethnic groups and in some nations. Furthermore, data from several studies indicate that greater male variability with respect to mathematics is not ubiquitous. Rather, its presence correlates with several measures of gender inequality. Thus, it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between the sexes. Responding to the third question, we document the existence of females who possess profound mathematical talent. Finally, we review mounting evidence that both the magnitude of mean math gender differences and the frequency of identification of gifted and profoundly gifted females significantly correlate with sociocultural factors, including measures of gender equality across nations." Let's be clear here though. There are indeed be biological differences between the male and female brain. Females may be better at certain tasks than males and vice-versa. The question is, is there evidence to suggest biological factors could play a significant role in explaining the extremely low amounts of women in science? Consider the fact that even if some biological difference in mathematical ability could be demonstrated, that wouldn't even come close to explaining the disparity. We're not trying to produce Nobel Laureates here, just scientists.
  - araneae 16y ago
    the biological arguments have been proven to have no merit They may have little merit in terms of ability. However, in terms of interest they could have a lot of merit. Innate interest is often invoked to explain why a ridiculous number of women go to veterinary school, for instance. Did you know that the first Humane Societies were started by women, in a time when women did pretty much absolutely nothing?
- liedra 16y ago
  Maybe it's because I'm not American but I don't understand what "the woo" is exactly here. The closest thing I can think of is the verb "to woo" which ... doesn't really make sense here. Could you possibly explain it?
  - JulianMorrison 16y ago
    It's a shorthand term for "hokey religions, mystical mumbo-jumbo, pseudoscience, quack medicine and magic". Not sure of the derivation - I'm guessing it's from "woo", the stereotypical ghost noise.
    - wjy 16y ago
      No, no no. If you're guessing wildly like that, don't bother. In this case, "woo" refers to the "softer" attributes often associated with women - nurturing, caring, feeling.
      - JulianMorrison 16y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo "Woo woo, a term used by scientific skeptics for pseudoscience, alternative medicine and New Age beliefs."
        wjy 16y ago
        But the article wasn't talking about pseudoscience, alternative medicine, or New Age beliefs. It was talking about women in scientific fields. Just because a word has multiple definitions doesn't mean you can pick one that doesn't apply and call me wrong.
  - bitwize 16y ago
    "Woo" is slang within the online skeptic community, popularized I believe at James Randi's forums. It's short for "woo woo", referring to the theremin-like sound heard in old B movies when "otherworldly phenomena" took place. It refers to beliefs and purported phenomena which are "out there" and lacking in rational, scientific basis.
liedra 16y ago
I think you're quite right, but I'm wondering if it reflects that because a lot of those guilty of this sort of behaviour in science are still stuck in the mindset of 10-15 years ago? Mind you this shouldn't affect the way he argues about it, but if scientists are still bringing up the "women feel, men think" argument it seems right to address it.
anamax 16y ago
> As an aside, I'll point out any battle for women in science was lost long before women med students had to put up with their misogynistic counterparts. The issue is about the women who didn't make it to med school in the first place. Is it that simple? It's my understanding that most med school admits these days are women. I've also heard that surgeons are atypical doctors. If either of those are true, the conclusion is questionable. Also, medicine isn't all or even most of science.
- tsally 16y ago
  Replace "med school" with your scientific field of choice. The general principle doesn't depend on the specific example. I only used it because the article's author did. And as far as your question goes "is it really that simple?" In the context I presented (effective early education versus discrimination in the workplace), I personally believe it is that simple. Women with talents in the sciences wont be ignored simply because they are too valuable to business and society. We just need to figure out a way to produce more technically skilled women. While we're at it, we should probably figure out a way to produce more technically skilled men too. Getting people to go into technical fields is already difficult, it just happens to be more difficult with women because of social factors.
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    Women with talents in the sciences wont be ignored simply because they are too valuable to business and society. On the other hand, I sometimes get the impression (I am primarily viewing this as a teacher of elementary age pupils) that persons with talents in the sciences ARE ignored (at early school age) even though they will be valuable to business and society if they develop those talents as they grow up. I teach supplemental math classes to advanced learners on weekends. I'm gratified that the pupils' parents (many of whom sit in and observe my lessons) think my work is valuable, and that the children think the classes are worth leaving home for on a weekend, but the market for my services only exists because those pupils feel their talents aren't being developed during regular school hours. I'm delighted that I have both boys and girls as pupils, and that through middle-school age (taught by a different instructor in my program) the girls persist in the supplemental math classes quite as avidly as the boys. But I note for the record that I just came home from sending my son off to the American Regions Mathematics League (ARML) competition this weekend. The Minnesota Gold and Minnesota Maroon teams include quite a collection of math-liking young people, but only just a few girls. Sometime about high school age, at least in my state, there may continue to be a female interest in subjects that lead to being medical doctors, but there seems to be little support for boys, and next to none for girls, in high school for subjects that lead to being mathematicians or economists or computer scientists. Maybe you and I are agreeing that if someone squeezes through the funnel of high school, the person with talents in the sciences can count on a reasonably assured career, even in a recession economy. But I find it worrisome that sometime around high school age, a lot of girls stop squeezing through the funnel.
araneae 16y ago
"Women feel, while men think" is essentially a solved debate as far as gender issues go. Really? Because this is, on average, true. Whether or not it's biological or cultural is another argument, but I think that is also up for debate. The fact is that Meyer-Briggs test show that women are much more likely to be "Feeling" over "Thinking" on that axis of the test. Now, you can debate all you want over the validity of these personality tests, but when women are asked how they react to situations, they tend choose to select the "feeling" axis. Perhaps that's not actually what they think, and they're just trying to conform to female stereotypes, but I really don't think it's resolved at all.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Myers-Briggs scores people on several dimensions. They chose to label one of those dimensions "thinking-feeling". But that doesn't mean that the test is actually discriminating between "thinking" and "feeling" as we commonly understand those words. You could just as easily label the "thinking-feeling" axis as "detached-involved" -- but then it would obviously be irrelevant to the claim that "women feel, while men think". This is one of those cases where details matter: psychometrics are not simple.
  - mattmillr 16y ago
    To further illustrate how you can't just throw these labels around, Myers-Briggs has "iNtuiting" on another axis. PZ Meyers makes references that place "Intuition" in opposition to science (thinking.) If the words mean the same in both contexts, then the Myers-Briggs temperament of the NT/Rational who is both iNtuitive and Thinking becomes, well, awkward at best.
    - araneae 16y ago
      Obviously the set of questions they ask relating to "thinking" versus "feeling" do not have a 1-to-1 relationship with those characteristics. But it's not bad: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.asp http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-bas... To address intuition, INTPs- where N stands for intuition- are actually the "scientist" types. However, like you note, the combination is comparatively rare. "Intuition" for MBTI talks about how you perceive incoming information. http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or-intuition.asp http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-bas... But you're right, the definition of "intuition" in MBTI is... unintuitive.
MichaelSalib 16y ago
We've moved on from this basic debate between thinking and feeling. Yes and no. Many people think that "men think, women feel" is absurd, so in that sense we've moved on. But on the other hand, right in this thread, there are comments by people insisting that it is true, so in that sense, we haven't moved on. More to the point, human beings have all sorts of beliefs that they can't/won't admit to holding. That's the whole point of Implicit Association Tests: pretty much everyone who intellectually believes that racism (for example) is bunk will have a brain that makes racist associations. That is true today, even though we've moved beyond the notion that black people are inferior to white people. Those subconscious associations still exist, and they still affect how people behave, so it makes sense that we should occasionally discuss them openly. PZ is living in the real world where real people have brains that make sexist associations even though those same people would never make equivalent sexist comments. any battle for women in science was lost long before women med students had to put up with their misogynistic counterparts Why is there only one battle? Can't there be multiple battles? I mean, making sure women get to med school is important, but if med school programs systematically shunt women to specialties they don't really enjoy so they end up dropping out of the field dissatisfied early on, that seems like the kind of problem that would make it harder to recruit women into med school to begin with....
bitwize 16y ago
Women are often their own worst enemies in this regard, and the simplistic model of "women feel and men think" is nowadays promulgated not by misogynists but by women themselves; worse yet is the idea that critical aspects of society, like science, should be oriented towards feeling instead of thinking to be more "inclusive". Who are the ones pushing Oprah as a model of womanhood? It's not men or the "patriarchy" because we don't get it. Oprah is a successful woman and she's achieved a lot, but she makes fun of critical thought on her television program and promotes all sorts of wasteful, dangerous nonsense, all in the name of making issues of health and suchlike more "feminine". It's not patriarchal to teach girls and women logic and critical-thinking skills. In fact, it's critically important to do so to counteract the enculturation they've received that a lack of critical thinking capability is somehow good and right and an ideal of womanhood; just like it's important to teach them self-defense skills to counteract the simple mechanical fact that (on average) women are smaller and weaker than men.

by tsally 16y ago

JulianMorrison 16y ago

"Women own the woo, men own the science" is not a solved problem.

tsally 16y ago
Agreed. Were you under the impression I was arguing as such? I'm simply saying "men think and women feel" is a debate we were having a long time ago before the biological arguments for the lack of women in science were refuted. Now that the biological arguments have been proven to have no merit, the issues we need to be looking at are social. Women are not being told they can't do science anymore (that's what the article seems to be suggesting). Instead they're being told they need to look pretty and live up to certain standards of beauty. Living up to these standards is a lot of work for young girls and doesn't leave much time for much else. Men on the other hand can neglect such standards and still be socially accepted. I can't even imagine what a woman would go through if she dressed like your average male engineer.
- pwhelan 16y ago
  I don't think it is as much being told they cannot do science (as incapable) as much as it is being told they are odd and less desirable (consciously or subconsciously) if they embrace math/science/tech. It also depends on the woman how difficult these standards of beauty are achieving. Many of my female friends are engineers (comp, ee, cheg) and look excellent. Not because they "dress to the nines" but because they put on a little makeup and a nice shirt. The ones who were less accepted socially tended to be those who didn't take care of themselves, including the men.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    It may not be that girls are told they are less desirable if they embrace math/science/tech. I'm very skeptical of that being a widely held belief. It may simply be that girls do not wish to associate with others they perceive as less desirable. http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/0901/pages/geeks/geeks.html http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/0901/pages/geeks/geeks.html
    - pwhelan 16y ago
      True, however there is something saying "the people who do this are less desirable", thus if you do that you are less desirable. Why these people are considered less desirable is debatable. Also, in science don't we include medical personnel? In math, quantitative finance? I would hardly say those people are perceived as less desirable. Also, as a comp sci guy, I don't like the "tolerance for all quirks" thing we have going in some ways. It is great that we are passionate about our stuff, but there is social decorum that we should follow. Showers, general professionalism, and paying attention to how others feel about things -- these should not be considered polite suggestions but requisites.
      - lsc 16y ago
        > but there is social decorum that we should follow. really? In business, politics and law, we tolerate a lot of manipulative, egotistical assholes. why shouldn't the nerds get a break on some things, too? If I can save 20 minutes in the morning by throwing on jeans and a T shirt and not messing with my hair, really, what's the problem with that? why should I waste time/money on dressing nicely? Really, I think the fact that nerds aren't held to the same level of 'professional appearance' as others of the same pay grade is that manipulating others, generally speaking, isn't our job. The fact of the matter is, how someone dresses is simply not a good indicator of honesty, skill, or anything else you might actually care about. I know my first impression, when I see someone in a suit, is "who is he trying to impress? and why can't he do it with his skills, rather than his appearance?"
        16y ago
- bokonist 16y ago
  I'm simply saying "men think and women feel" is a debate we were having a long time ago before the biological arguments for the lack of women in science were refuted. When were the biological arguments refuted? source? From what I've heard, there seems to be more evidence for the biological side now (eg http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/summers-vindica.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07... ).
  - tsally 16y ago
    That's not an accurate description of the research that has been done in the field. There's certainly not "more evidence for the biological side". Mathematical performance on standardized testing is quite similar (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/321/5888/494 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/321/5888/494). When people read that study many are quick to point out that there is greater variance for men than for women, however other studies suggest (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801 http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801) that could certainly be attributed to cultural factors. Just read the abstract: "Using contemporary data from the U.S. and other nations, we address 3 questions: Do gender differences in mathematics performance exist in the general population? Do gender differences exist among the mathematically talented? Do females exist who possess profound mathematical talent? In regard to the first question, contemporary data indicate that girls in the U.S. have reached parity with boys in mathematics performance, a pattern that is found in some other nations as well. Focusing on the second question, studies find more males than females scoring above the 95th or 99th percentile, but this gender gap has significantly narrowed over time in the U.S. and is not found among some ethnic groups and in some nations. Furthermore, data from several studies indicate that greater male variability with respect to mathematics is not ubiquitous. Rather, its presence correlates with several measures of gender inequality. Thus, it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between the sexes. Responding to the third question, we document the existence of females who possess profound mathematical talent. Finally, we review mounting evidence that both the magnitude of mean math gender differences and the frequency of identification of gifted and profoundly gifted females significantly correlate with sociocultural factors, including measures of gender equality across nations." Let's be clear here though. There are indeed be biological differences between the male and female brain. Females may be better at certain tasks than males and vice-versa. The question is, is there evidence to suggest biological factors could play a significant role in explaining the extremely low amounts of women in science? Consider the fact that even if some biological difference in mathematical ability could be demonstrated, that wouldn't even come close to explaining the disparity. We're not trying to produce Nobel Laureates here, just scientists.
- araneae 16y ago
  the biological arguments have been proven to have no merit They may have little merit in terms of ability. However, in terms of interest they could have a lot of merit. Innate interest is often invoked to explain why a ridiculous number of women go to veterinary school, for instance. Did you know that the first Humane Societies were started by women, in a time when women did pretty much absolutely nothing?
liedra 16y ago
Maybe it's because I'm not American but I don't understand what "the woo" is exactly here. The closest thing I can think of is the verb "to woo" which ... doesn't really make sense here. Could you possibly explain it?
- JulianMorrison 16y ago
  It's a shorthand term for "hokey religions, mystical mumbo-jumbo, pseudoscience, quack medicine and magic". Not sure of the derivation - I'm guessing it's from "woo", the stereotypical ghost noise.
  - wjy 16y ago
    No, no no. If you're guessing wildly like that, don't bother. In this case, "woo" refers to the "softer" attributes often associated with women - nurturing, caring, feeling.
    - JulianMorrison 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo "Woo woo, a term used by scientific skeptics for pseudoscience, alternative medicine and New Age beliefs."
      - wjy 16y ago
        But the article wasn't talking about pseudoscience, alternative medicine, or New Age beliefs. It was talking about women in scientific fields. Just because a word has multiple definitions doesn't mean you can pick one that doesn't apply and call me wrong.
- bitwize 16y ago
  "Woo" is slang within the online skeptic community, popularized I believe at James Randi's forums. It's short for "woo woo", referring to the theremin-like sound heard in old B movies when "otherworldly phenomena" took place. It refers to beliefs and purported phenomena which are "out there" and lacking in rational, scientific basis.

liedra 16y ago

I think you're quite right, but I'm wondering if it reflects that because a lot of those guilty of this sort of behaviour in science are still stuck in the mindset of 10-15 years ago? Mind you this shouldn't affect the way he argues about it, but if scientists are still bringing up the "women feel, men think" argument it seems right to address it.

anamax 16y ago

> As an aside, I'll point out any battle for women in science was lost long before women med students had to put up with their misogynistic counterparts. The issue is about the women who didn't make it to med school in the first place. Is it that simple? It's my understanding that most med school admits these days are women. I've also heard that surgeons are atypical doctors. If either of those are true, the conclusion is questionable. Also, medicine isn't all or even most of science.

tsally 16y ago
Replace "med school" with your scientific field of choice. The general principle doesn't depend on the specific example. I only used it because the article's author did. And as far as your question goes "is it really that simple?" In the context I presented (effective early education versus discrimination in the workplace), I personally believe it is that simple. Women with talents in the sciences wont be ignored simply because they are too valuable to business and society. We just need to figure out a way to produce more technically skilled women. While we're at it, we should probably figure out a way to produce more technically skilled men too. Getting people to go into technical fields is already difficult, it just happens to be more difficult with women because of social factors.
- tokenadult 16y ago
  Women with talents in the sciences wont be ignored simply because they are too valuable to business and society. On the other hand, I sometimes get the impression (I am primarily viewing this as a teacher of elementary age pupils) that persons with talents in the sciences ARE ignored (at early school age) even though they will be valuable to business and society if they develop those talents as they grow up. I teach supplemental math classes to advanced learners on weekends. I'm gratified that the pupils' parents (many of whom sit in and observe my lessons) think my work is valuable, and that the children think the classes are worth leaving home for on a weekend, but the market for my services only exists because those pupils feel their talents aren't being developed during regular school hours. I'm delighted that I have both boys and girls as pupils, and that through middle-school age (taught by a different instructor in my program) the girls persist in the supplemental math classes quite as avidly as the boys. But I note for the record that I just came home from sending my son off to the American Regions Mathematics League (ARML) competition this weekend. The Minnesota Gold and Minnesota Maroon teams include quite a collection of math-liking young people, but only just a few girls. Sometime about high school age, at least in my state, there may continue to be a female interest in subjects that lead to being medical doctors, but there seems to be little support for boys, and next to none for girls, in high school for subjects that lead to being mathematicians or economists or computer scientists. Maybe you and I are agreeing that if someone squeezes through the funnel of high school, the person with talents in the sciences can count on a reasonably assured career, even in a recession economy. But I find it worrisome that sometime around high school age, a lot of girls stop squeezing through the funnel.

araneae 16y ago

"Women feel, while men think" is essentially a solved debate as far as gender issues go. Really? Because this is, on average, true. Whether or not it's biological or cultural is another argument, but I think that is also up for debate. The fact is that Meyer-Briggs test show that women are much more likely to be "Feeling" over "Thinking" on that axis of the test. Now, you can debate all you want over the validity of these personality tests, but when women are asked how they react to situations, they tend choose to select the "feeling" axis. Perhaps that's not actually what they think, and they're just trying to conform to female stereotypes, but I really don't think it's resolved at all.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
Myers-Briggs scores people on several dimensions. They chose to label one of those dimensions "thinking-feeling". But that doesn't mean that the test is actually discriminating between "thinking" and "feeling" as we commonly understand those words. You could just as easily label the "thinking-feeling" axis as "detached-involved" -- but then it would obviously be irrelevant to the claim that "women feel, while men think". This is one of those cases where details matter: psychometrics are not simple.
- mattmillr 16y ago
  To further illustrate how you can't just throw these labels around, Myers-Briggs has "iNtuiting" on another axis. PZ Meyers makes references that place "Intuition" in opposition to science (thinking.) If the words mean the same in both contexts, then the Myers-Briggs temperament of the NT/Rational who is both iNtuitive and Thinking becomes, well, awkward at best.
  - araneae 16y ago
    Obviously the set of questions they ask relating to "thinking" versus "feeling" do not have a 1-to-1 relationship with those characteristics. But it's not bad: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.asp http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-bas... To address intuition, INTPs- where N stands for intuition- are actually the "scientist" types. However, like you note, the combination is comparatively rare. "Intuition" for MBTI talks about how you perceive incoming information. http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or-intuition.asp http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-bas... But you're right, the definition of "intuition" in MBTI is... unintuitive.

MichaelSalib 16y ago

We've moved on from this basic debate between thinking and feeling. Yes and no. Many people think that "men think, women feel" is absurd, so in that sense we've moved on. But on the other hand, right in this thread, there are comments by people insisting that it is true, so in that sense, we haven't moved on. More to the point, human beings have all sorts of beliefs that they can't/won't admit to holding. That's the whole point of Implicit Association Tests: pretty much everyone who intellectually believes that racism (for example) is bunk will have a brain that makes racist associations. That is true today, even though we've moved beyond the notion that black people are inferior to white people. Those subconscious associations still exist, and they still affect how people behave, so it makes sense that we should occasionally discuss them openly. PZ is living in the real world where real people have brains that make sexist associations even though those same people would never make equivalent sexist comments. any battle for women in science was lost long before women med students had to put up with their misogynistic counterparts Why is there only one battle? Can't there be multiple battles? I mean, making sure women get to med school is important, but if med school programs systematically shunt women to specialties they don't really enjoy so they end up dropping out of the field dissatisfied early on, that seems like the kind of problem that would make it harder to recruit women into med school to begin with....

bitwize 16y ago

Women are often their own worst enemies in this regard, and the simplistic model of "women feel and men think" is nowadays promulgated not by misogynists but by women themselves; worse yet is the idea that critical aspects of society, like science, should be oriented towards feeling instead of thinking to be more "inclusive". Who are the ones pushing Oprah as a model of womanhood? It's not men or the "patriarchy" because we don't get it. Oprah is a successful woman and she's achieved a lot, but she makes fun of critical thought on her television program and promotes all sorts of wasteful, dangerous nonsense, all in the name of making issues of health and suchlike more "feminine". It's not patriarchal to teach girls and women logic and critical-thinking skills. In fact, it's critically important to do so to counteract the enculturation they've received that a lack of critical thinking capability is somehow good and right and an ideal of womanhood; just like it's important to teach them self-defense skills to counteract the simple mechanical fact that (on average) women are smaller and weaker than men.