4 ms·

The article reads as if because of political correctness it HAS to be true that there are no differences in intellectual capacity between men and women. It also

The article reads as if because of political correctness it HAS to be true that there are no differences in intellectual capacity between men and women. It also misrepresents Summer's quote - I think what he said is that the distribution might be different, he never said women can not be as smart as men. I don't know if there are differences, but I think it's very wrong to assume there aren't just because it seems modern and politically correct. Especially since the alternative theories put forward to explain lack of women in maths or CS are usually harmful, heavily prejudiced and inflammatory. And barking up the wrong tree is unlikely to solve the problem (for example if billions are spent to fight assumed sexism and sexism isn't even the cause). It's also funny that whenever there is a job which seems to call for "women's strengths" nobody has qualms to claim "women are better at x" (say empathy, risk management, relationships, whatever). I wish people would at least make up their mind, do they believe there are no differences or not? Then if they go praising papers that seem to show female CEOs are more successful, how do they explain it if they don't believe in differences? There is also little debate about physical differences - I think few would suggest it is sexist to have separate football leagues for men and women. Although, to be sure, women can be stronger than most men - but most simply aren't. Edit: HN doesn't let me comment atm. To the comment accusing me of sexism: I said it's wrong to assume there are no differences for PC reason. You say it's sexist to assume differences. That's something entirely different. It's always wrong to assume something without evidence (and then there are just degrees of belief):

Udo 12y ago
> because of political correctness it HAS to be true that there are no differences in intellectual capacity between men and women Saying that women are in principle as smart as men is not a statement from political correctness, I didn't get that angle from the article at all. The thesis brought forth by the article states that the separate female award is a lesser prize, and it's difficult to argue with that. The rationale for having such a lesser award might even have been honorable, they might have instituted it to encourage participation, but in the long run this is a self-defeating measure. > I don't know if there are differences, but I think it's very wrong to assume there aren't just because it seems modern and politically correct. As I read this I'm having painful flashbacks to threads where commenters claimed it was never proven that black people as intelligent as white people. And some even less cautious users flatly asserted that black people are dumber as a known medical fact, and everybody who disagreed was just doing it to be politically correct. This was racism then, as this is sexism now, there's no doubt about it. Even if you really didn't know the answer, wouldn't the default assumption have to be equality? > nobody has qualms to claim "women are better at x" (say empathy, risk management, relationships, whatever). I'm highly suspicious of such claims, and I think most other people who don't match the "political correctness advocate" pattern are, as well. > I think few would suggest it is sexist to have separate football leagues for men and women You don't get to claim differences in any area where it might be convenient just on the basis that there are some known physical differences. The assertion "it's not sexist to assume men are physically stronger than women on average, so it cannot be sexist to assume men are also more intelligent" is a non sequitur.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  this is an interesting documentary about race and intelligence by channel4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8W2tPujeE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8W2tPujeE
- seunosewa 12y ago
  How is a maths award for women a "self-defeating measure". Please elaborate on this claim. Thanks.
anologwintermut 12y ago
Summers's point was about the distribution at the extremes, not the average. He was addressing the lack of professors in STEM at places like Harvard which manifestly select for the far end of the bell curve. Right, wrong, or otherwise, that has almost nothing to do with the average case and even he contended that the best statistical evidence showed women and men were roughly equal. So, unless one seriously thinks that the entire field of programming/IT/computer science as a whole requires that level of talent, Summer's point doesn't apply and there are certainly other reasons for the gender gap in computer science.
- Trumpet6 12y ago
  A survey (published in Science[1]) of ~1800 academics across 30 disciplines in the US saw a non-significant positive correlation between estimates of how selective a department is with graduate students and the female representation in that disciplines. In other words a field that was more selective (as measured by the proportion of applicants being admitted) might have more women in it. This evidence is is not compatible with any reasonable prediction from the "different high tail" theory. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/262.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/262.abstract
rockmeamedee 12y ago
Assuming no difference isn't Politically Correct (by which I take it you mean a social lie that nobody actually believes). Really, there are no differences (cf Delusions of Gender http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244 http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-D...). There is no difference between a woman's brain and a man's. Give two brain scans (fMRIs/MEGs/EEGs etc) to a neuroscientist and they cannot tell which one belongs to which gender. And people do have qualms saying women are better at empathy. "Women's strengths" justifies sexism and boxing women into specific roles. In the 50's it was keeping women in the kitchen, "because they were naturally better at it and want to do it", now it's empathy and relationships which justifies them having to raise children and doing emotional labor. Regardless, the article is bad, it makes a false dichotomy. First, Putnam should increase participation in girls, then it can remove the special women's prize.
- xyzzyz 12y ago
  There is no difference between a woman's brain and a man's. Give two brain scans (fMRIs/MEGs/EEGs etc) to a neuroscientist and they cannot tell which one belongs to which gender. This claim sounded fishy enough to me to warrant more research for sources, and the first Google result was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences It does seem to clearly contradict your claim. Further research directed me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/6/490.abstract http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/6/490.abstract Generally, searching for "sexual dimorphism human brain" brings up a lot of results. It seems that you should update your data.

Udo 12y ago

> because of political correctness it HAS to be true that there are no differences in intellectual capacity between men and women Saying that women are in principle as smart as men is not a statement from political correctness, I didn't get that angle from the article at all. The thesis brought forth by the article states that the separate female award is a lesser prize, and it's difficult to argue with that. The rationale for having such a lesser award might even have been honorable, they might have instituted it to encourage participation, but in the long run this is a self-defeating measure. > I don't know if there are differences, but I think it's very wrong to assume there aren't just because it seems modern and politically correct. As I read this I'm having painful flashbacks to threads where commenters claimed it was never proven that black people as intelligent as white people. And some even less cautious users flatly asserted that black people are dumber as a known medical fact, and everybody who disagreed was just doing it to be politically correct. This was racism then, as this is sexism now, there's no doubt about it. Even if you really didn't know the answer, wouldn't the default assumption have to be equality? > nobody has qualms to claim "women are better at x" (say empathy, risk management, relationships, whatever). I'm highly suspicious of such claims, and I think most other people who don't match the "political correctness advocate" pattern are, as well. > I think few would suggest it is sexist to have separate football leagues for men and women You don't get to claim differences in any area where it might be convenient just on the basis that there are some known physical differences. The assertion "it's not sexist to assume men are physically stronger than women on average, so it cannot be sexist to assume men are also more intelligent" is a non sequitur.

throwawayaway 12y ago
this is an interesting documentary about race and intelligence by channel4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8W2tPujeE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8W2tPujeE
seunosewa 12y ago
How is a maths award for women a "self-defeating measure". Please elaborate on this claim. Thanks.

anologwintermut 12y ago

Summers's point was about the distribution at the extremes, not the average. He was addressing the lack of professors in STEM at places like Harvard which manifestly select for the far end of the bell curve. Right, wrong, or otherwise, that has almost nothing to do with the average case and even he contended that the best statistical evidence showed women and men were roughly equal. So, unless one seriously thinks that the entire field of programming/IT/computer science as a whole requires that level of talent, Summer's point doesn't apply and there are certainly other reasons for the gender gap in computer science.

Trumpet6 12y ago
A survey (published in Science[1]) of ~1800 academics across 30 disciplines in the US saw a non-significant positive correlation between estimates of how selective a department is with graduate students and the female representation in that disciplines. In other words a field that was more selective (as measured by the proportion of applicants being admitted) might have more women in it. This evidence is is not compatible with any reasonable prediction from the "different high tail" theory. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/262.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/262.abstract

rockmeamedee 12y ago

Assuming no difference isn't Politically Correct (by which I take it you mean a social lie that nobody actually believes). Really, there are no differences (cf Delusions of Gender http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244 http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-D...). There is no difference between a woman's brain and a man's. Give two brain scans (fMRIs/MEGs/EEGs etc) to a neuroscientist and they cannot tell which one belongs to which gender. And people do have qualms saying women are better at empathy. "Women's strengths" justifies sexism and boxing women into specific roles. In the 50's it was keeping women in the kitchen, "because they were naturally better at it and want to do it", now it's empathy and relationships which justifies them having to raise children and doing emotional labor. Regardless, the article is bad, it makes a false dichotomy. First, Putnam should increase participation in girls, then it can remove the special women's prize.

xyzzyz 12y ago
There is no difference between a woman's brain and a man's. Give two brain scans (fMRIs/MEGs/EEGs etc) to a neuroscientist and they cannot tell which one belongs to which gender. This claim sounded fishy enough to me to warrant more research for sources, and the first Google result was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences It does seem to clearly contradict your claim. Further research directed me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_dimorphic_nucleus http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/6/490.abstract http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/6/490.abstract Generally, searching for "sexual dimorphism human brain" brings up a lot of results. It seems that you should update your data.