3 ms·

How is the theory not disparaging to women? Society is run by people at the edge of the bell curve, if you say that there are less women at the edges than you

by jrkelly 14y ago

How is the theory not disparaging to women? Society is run by people at the edge of the bell curve, if you say that there are less women at the edges than you are saying that it's no big deal we have less women in high-ranking positions.

hashmymustache 14y ago
What theory says society is run by people at the edge of the bell curve? Edit: though if you mean politicians then you're right, they're definitely at the edge - just the wrong edge. Bzing!
- jrkelly 14y ago
  Fine, to be more specific -- he was referring to lack of women "in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions". IMO, people assume those positions are held by people that score well on traditional IQ tests. He was basically saying, it's OK we don't see women there -- it's in the biology, there aren't women at the edges of the bell curve. That's pretty disparaging. Edit: hah, yes I agree on politics.
  - rohern 14y ago
    I know nothing about this theory nor about the biology of human intelligence, but someone suggesting a scientific hypothesis is doing science whether or not you like the implications. Go yell at Darwin for implying that a Creator is unnecessary. Someone saying "women are dumb and therefore don't get jobs" would indeed be disparaging women, but proposing a hypothesis about the biology of intelligence is not.
  - hashmymustache 14y ago
    Ok I'll bite. I think the issue should focus on remedying the culture, regardless of whether boys dominate the ends. I will gently mention that boys are 5x as likely to have autism or lie within an autistic spectrum disorder loosely characterized by poor socialization skills and obsessive, repetitive behavior. They're (we're) also wired on testosterone which has different effects on the brain. I'm not saying that proves anything, but there's no point denying at the very least statistically observed tendencies in neurodevelopment. Separately, people tenured in STEM positions score well, but they don't have the best grades or IQs. They are often there because they knew the right people, can argue for grants (ie their own relevance and skills), and work their asses off writing papers. I wish they were the smartest, but more often I've encountered narcissists who try to put their names on everything because it's the only way toward promotion (don't blame the player, blame the game). When it comes to women, many grew up being told that if they do poorly in math/science it's ok because they're girls - this is AWFUL both immediately and downstream. Girls become more likely to blame bad performance on their sex and give up whereas guys blame bad performance as a fluke. In STEM fields, you encounter failure ALL the time, it sucks and you feel like a complete idiot. You just have to fight through it, and you're more likely to continue to fight if you aren't told you failed because of your sex. It's obviously a much more complicated issue than what I laid out. It's a very tricky area riddled with people too easily offended or who capitalize on misquotes for political gain. Like I said, whether or not trends are biological or environmental, people should be told to pursue their dreams (it's not like I would tell some white kid playing basketball that he shouldn't dream of going pro because he's not as well represented or if he fails it's because he's white). Yes, that's a false equivalency, but demonstrates societal expectations from seemingly biological premises. For context I'll add that I'm a guy who majored in engineering at a state school while my girlfriend graduated top 5 in her class at princeton in chemistry - we get into debates about this stuff all the time. I'm SO SORRY for using this as forum to rant. Please forgive me HN.
lutusp 14y ago
> How is the theory not disparaging to women? Think about it. If men have a wider standard deviation from the norm, that means there are more criminals and morons among men than among women. I think that's consistent with everyday experience, and suggests that women are more likely to be mentally balanced and law-abiding. Public records support this conclusion. It's all in how you look at it. The theory says that, on average, men and women have the same mental abilities, but in the extreme, there are more criminals and mentally challenged people among men. That is also supported by public records. > Society is run by people at the edge of the bell curve ... No, it isn't. Look at the average politician, or military leader -- these people aren't in any way extraordinary, to put it diplomatically. These are the people who steer society, not scientists and Nobel Prizewinners. > ... if you say that there are less women at the edges than you are saying that it's no big deal we have less women in high-ranking positions. Very intelligent people don't get into "high-ranking positions". They don't because voters don't trust them. The last genuinely intelligent person who ran for U.S. president was Adlai Stevenson (in 1952 and 1956), but the voters rejected him largely because of his obvious intelligence. Also, please, say "fewer women", not "less women". The latter describes physically short people of the fair sex. http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/less-or-fewer http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/less-or-fewer
- jrkelly 14y ago
  A theory that states "women cannot be exceptional" is disparaging to women.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > A theory that states "women cannot be exceptional" is disparaging to women. And if anyone took that position, the argument might be valid. But no one has, for a very good reason -- the theory doesn't support it.
revelation 14y ago
Society is run by people at the edge of the bell curve, if you say that there are less women at the edges then you are saying that it's no big deal we have less women in homeless shelters. It obviously goes both ways. Deviate too far in the direction of lower IQ and you end up with exponential reduction in means, power and choices. Following your suggestion of a direct correlation between IQ and success as in financial success, it can certainly be argued that men are worse off (and therefore more disparaged by his comments): if you end up with a high IQ, great for you. Go the other direction and your live will be miserable.
rayiner 14y ago
The two points aren't necessarily contradictory. Society isn't run by geniuses in the top 0.01%. Your engineers, scientists, politicians, CEO's, etc, largely fall in the top 10%, maybe the top 5%, but not necessarily the top 0.1%. If you look at sex differences in e.g. Mensa membership (top 2% of IQ) you'll see a roughly 2:1 representation of males versus females. So even if you take Summers bell curve references at face value, they're an argument for why there are so few female Einsteins, not why there are so few female Congressmen or CEO's. I think if 35% of NASA engineers and 40% of F500 CEO's were women, you wouldn't see the same consternation about the representation of women in these fields.

by jrkelly 14y ago

hashmymustache 14y ago

What theory says society is run by people at the edge of the bell curve? Edit: though if you mean politicians then you're right, they're definitely at the edge - just the wrong edge. Bzing!

jrkelly 14y ago
Fine, to be more specific -- he was referring to lack of women "in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions". IMO, people assume those positions are held by people that score well on traditional IQ tests. He was basically saying, it's OK we don't see women there -- it's in the biology, there aren't women at the edges of the bell curve. That's pretty disparaging. Edit: hah, yes I agree on politics.
- rohern 14y ago
  I know nothing about this theory nor about the biology of human intelligence, but someone suggesting a scientific hypothesis is doing science whether or not you like the implications. Go yell at Darwin for implying that a Creator is unnecessary. Someone saying "women are dumb and therefore don't get jobs" would indeed be disparaging women, but proposing a hypothesis about the biology of intelligence is not.
- hashmymustache 14y ago
  Ok I'll bite. I think the issue should focus on remedying the culture, regardless of whether boys dominate the ends. I will gently mention that boys are 5x as likely to have autism or lie within an autistic spectrum disorder loosely characterized by poor socialization skills and obsessive, repetitive behavior. They're (we're) also wired on testosterone which has different effects on the brain. I'm not saying that proves anything, but there's no point denying at the very least statistically observed tendencies in neurodevelopment. Separately, people tenured in STEM positions score well, but they don't have the best grades or IQs. They are often there because they knew the right people, can argue for grants (ie their own relevance and skills), and work their asses off writing papers. I wish they were the smartest, but more often I've encountered narcissists who try to put their names on everything because it's the only way toward promotion (don't blame the player, blame the game). When it comes to women, many grew up being told that if they do poorly in math/science it's ok because they're girls - this is AWFUL both immediately and downstream. Girls become more likely to blame bad performance on their sex and give up whereas guys blame bad performance as a fluke. In STEM fields, you encounter failure ALL the time, it sucks and you feel like a complete idiot. You just have to fight through it, and you're more likely to continue to fight if you aren't told you failed because of your sex. It's obviously a much more complicated issue than what I laid out. It's a very tricky area riddled with people too easily offended or who capitalize on misquotes for political gain. Like I said, whether or not trends are biological or environmental, people should be told to pursue their dreams (it's not like I would tell some white kid playing basketball that he shouldn't dream of going pro because he's not as well represented or if he fails it's because he's white). Yes, that's a false equivalency, but demonstrates societal expectations from seemingly biological premises. For context I'll add that I'm a guy who majored in engineering at a state school while my girlfriend graduated top 5 in her class at princeton in chemistry - we get into debates about this stuff all the time. I'm SO SORRY for using this as forum to rant. Please forgive me HN.

lutusp 14y ago

> How is the theory not disparaging to women? Think about it. If men have a wider standard deviation from the norm, that means there are more criminals and morons among men than among women. I think that's consistent with everyday experience, and suggests that women are more likely to be mentally balanced and law-abiding. Public records support this conclusion. It's all in how you look at it. The theory says that, on average, men and women have the same mental abilities, but in the extreme, there are more criminals and mentally challenged people among men. That is also supported by public records. > Society is run by people at the edge of the bell curve ... No, it isn't. Look at the average politician, or military leader -- these people aren't in any way extraordinary, to put it diplomatically. These are the people who steer society, not scientists and Nobel Prizewinners. > ... if you say that there are less women at the edges than you are saying that it's no big deal we have less women in high-ranking positions. Very intelligent people don't get into "high-ranking positions". They don't because voters don't trust them. The last genuinely intelligent person who ran for U.S. president was Adlai Stevenson (in 1952 and 1956), but the voters rejected him largely because of his obvious intelligence. Also, please, say "fewer women", not "less women". The latter describes physically short people of the fair sex. http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/less-or-fewer http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/less-or-fewer

jrkelly 14y ago
A theory that states "women cannot be exceptional" is disparaging to women.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > A theory that states "women cannot be exceptional" is disparaging to women. And if anyone took that position, the argument might be valid. But no one has, for a very good reason -- the theory doesn't support it.

revelation 14y ago

Society is run by people at the edge of the bell curve, if you say that there are less women at the edges then you are saying that it's no big deal we have less women in homeless shelters. It obviously goes both ways. Deviate too far in the direction of lower IQ and you end up with exponential reduction in means, power and choices. Following your suggestion of a direct correlation between IQ and success as in financial success, it can certainly be argued that men are worse off (and therefore more disparaged by his comments): if you end up with a high IQ, great for you. Go the other direction and your live will be miserable.

rayiner 14y ago

The two points aren't necessarily contradictory. Society isn't run by geniuses in the top 0.01%. Your engineers, scientists, politicians, CEO's, etc, largely fall in the top 10%, maybe the top 5%, but not necessarily the top 0.1%. If you look at sex differences in e.g. Mensa membership (top 2% of IQ) you'll see a roughly 2:1 representation of males versus females. So even if you take Summers bell curve references at face value, they're an argument for why there are so few female Einsteins, not why there are so few female Congressmen or CEO's. I think if 35% of NASA engineers and 40% of F500 CEO's were women, you wouldn't see the same consternation about the representation of women in these fields.