Gender-based Cognitive Differences

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Has anyone been following the hoohah over Harvard University president Lawrence Summers' comment at an academic conference that gender-based cognitive differences might explain some of the underrepresentation of women in mathematical academic positions?

He was promptly denounced as a horribly biased caveman. One academic, Nancy Hopkins, stormed out of the conference and later told media that she was on the verge of throwing up or blacking out -- which didn't really do much to dispel stereotypes of hysterical women.

Are there really so many chowderheads out there who can't tell the difference between a stereotype and an average? And what was Summers thinking, expecting that a university campus would be receptive to the free expression of scientific opinion? Even the absolutist Mormon proponents of "faithful history" don't throw up or pass out when confronted with a Grant Palmer or some such. (They're perfectly calm as they string the offenders up.)

George Will, as usual, describes the issues better than I do:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan26.html

[Jenda]

Well, all I have to say is that if this is true, then it also must be true that blacks are genetically engineered to run faster than whites.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 27 2005, 01:33 PM

Well, all I have to say is that if this is true, then it also must be true that blacks are genetically engineered to run faster than whites.

See above line about people who can't tell the difference between averages and stereotypes. If I may paraphrase Simon Cowell, that was simply an appalling display of illogic.

American blacks of West African origin do, on average, tend to have more favorable muscular structures for sprinting, just as East African blacks tend, on average, to have enhanced capacities for long-distance running. Artificial "genetic engineering" need not have anything to do with it; it just is. On average, the Japanese and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQs in the world. On average, Jews have an elevated frequency of Tay-Sachs disease, African-Americans have elevated rates of hypertension and sickle-cell anemia. Utah Mormons appear to have a higher rate of spina bifida (probably because of inbreeding due to polygamy). Genes occur in different frequencies in different populations. So, naturally, do the traits by which those genes express themselves.

We have been so conditioned against "bias" that we react to real, scientifically-demonstrated differences in the genetic makeup of different populations as if we're the Catholic cardinals exposed to Galileo. The research is overwhelming that, on average, boys have better spacial reasoning abilities, while girls have better communication ability. The brain is a part of the body. Male and female bodies are different. Why in the name of all that is holy is it taboo to contemplate that the differences between males and females in brain chemistry (and there are huge differences) actually have an effect on how men and women think -- in the aggregate?

This is not to say that women can't be brilliant mathematical minds. But in the aggregate, given the way nature deals her cards, one would expect to see more male math geniuses than female. And we see exactly that.

[Jenda]

I agree, PD. My remark, although true, was meant tongue-in-cheek.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 27 2005, 01:33 PM

Well, all I have to say is that if this is true, then it also must be true that blacks are genetically engineered to run faster than whites.

No, they have been naturally selected to run faster than whites. And people who lived in equatorial climates are naturally selected for more melanin. And people who live in hot climates are naturally selected for leaner bodies which disapate heat faster.

When you isolate a population of any living things for long periods of time, natural selection is going to cause certain traits to flourish.

In the case of Black americans, slavery (evil and unjust as it was) selected for physical superiority in Black americans. That is not a racial comment--just a scientific one.

Something similar happened in the south pacific among Samoans and Tongans. These people had so much hand to hand physical combat that large bone and musculature was "selected" for--literally, the weak parished, and weren't around to reproduce before they were killed. Result: There is hardly an NFL team with out a Samoan.

I agree with PD on this---must be the first social issue we have agreed on. There are bound to be differences between men and women--physical and mental. That women might not, as a group, be as good at math and science should come as no big surprise--clearly, evolution selected for certain kinds of mental talents based on gender roles developed over millions of years among our human ancestors.

Women spent a lot more time in the caves, and later houses communicating about domestic issues. Men spent a lot more time problem solving over how to best bring down a mammoth or catch smaller mammal. They needed a lot more problem solving skills, being their role to insure physical survival. The men who could best solve these problems could "sire" the most offspring because they could support the most women. That is called natural selection. Science and math are essentially problem solving techniques. That men should be a bit more drawn to their things, comes quite naturally.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 27 2005, 02:09 PM

I agree, PD. My remark, although true, was meant tongue-in-cheek.

Ah.

Someone ought to invent a smilie for "tongue in cheek" so that the subtle jokes don't go completely over the heads of us communication-skills-impaired males!

[Guest curvette]

I've heard these things before, and they sound reasonable. But why are those superior brain functions only passed on to the male offspring, or passed on at such a higher rate? I would think that specific male/female traits would be influenced by hormones, and not simply natural selection.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette@Jan 27 2005, 03:21 PM

I've heard these things before, and they sound reasonable. But why are those superior brain functions only passed on to the male offspring, or passed on at such a higher rate? I would think that specific male/female traits would be influenced by hormones, and not simply natural selection.

Natural selection selects for whatever increases the likelihood of survival--that could include the production of hormones as well.

You have also included an untested assumption in the term "superior". They are only superior if you so label them. In maintaining social relationships, they may not be superior at all. They are simply different. Traits that are assets in one context or environment may go from being assets to liabilities in another---for example, my Dad was great at winning debates and arguments, but was a duck out of water in a causal conversation with a large group of people--if his survival had depended on being able to charm and schmooze a mixed group at a party--his "lineage" would have definitely died out.

[Guest curvette]

I understand natural selection. I guess what I don't understand is why a particular trait that enabled survival would be passed on to one gender and not the other. For example, when we started walking upright, this trait was passed to both genders. When we lost the majority of our body hair, both sexes did (although males retained much more facial hair.) Male and female humans are the same species. I don't mean that men have better brains (in fact, I know a few who don't seem to have a brain at all!), but how does a certain trait become inherited by male offspring and not female or vice versa? Obviously, certain physical differences exist along gender lines, but do cognitive functions follow the same pattern? I suppose they must.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 27 2005, 11:19 AM

Has anyone been following the hoohah over Harvard University president Lawrence Summers' comment at an academic conference that gender-based cognitive differences might explain some of the underrepresentation of women in mathematical academic positions?

He was promptly denounced as a horribly biased caveman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan26.html

Yea, saw that but to be fair, the critics did say that he was harping on already soundly rejected premises.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 27 2005, 01:41 PM

No, they have been naturally selected to run faster than whites. And people who lived in equatorial climates are naturally selected for more melanin. And people who live in hot climates are naturally selected for leaner bodies which disapate heat faster.

I'm confused.

When I go to the supermarket and look in the meat section, I naturally select the USDA Choice Porterhouse steak and naturally ignore the ground round.

Are we talking about the same thing?

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette@Jan 27 2005, 05:52 PM

I understand natural selection. I guess what I don't understand is why a particular trait that enabled survival would be passed on to one gender and not the other. For example, when we started walking upright, this trait was passed to both genders. When we lost the majority of our body hair, both sexes did (although males retained much more facial hair.) Male and female humans are the same species. I don't mean that men have better brains (in fact, I know a few who don't seem to have a brain at all!), but how does a certain trait become inherited by male offspring and not female or vice versa? Obviously, certain physical differences exist along gender lines, but do cognitive functions follow the same pattern? I suppose they must.

It seems you answered your own question.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 27 2005, 08:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 27 2005, 08:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 27 2005, 01:41 PM

No, they have been naturally selected to run faster than whites. And people who lived in equatorial climates are naturally selected for more melanin. And people who live in hot climates are naturally selected for leaner bodies which disapate heat faster.

I'm confused.

When I go to the supermarket and look in the meat section, I naturally select the USDA Choice Porterhouse steak and naturally ignore the ground round.

Are we talking about the same thing?

Yeah, Meathead, we are. Well, up to a point. The environment decides what traits are of benefit. In your case, the lesser cut of meat gets to rot in the store because its environment is made of a whole bunch of carnivours who affluent enough to be able to afford a better cut of meat.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 27 2005, 08:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 27 2005, 08:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 27 2005, 11:19 AM

Has anyone been following the hoohah over Harvard University president Lawrence Summers' comment at an academic conference that gender-based cognitive differences might explain some of the underrepresentation of women in mathematical academic positions?

He was promptly denounced as a horribly biased caveman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan26.html

Yea, saw that but to be fair, the critics did say that he was harping on already soundly rejected premises.

"Soundly rejected" in the same sense as Charles Murray's IQ research was "soundly rejected" -- i.e. subjected to much sound and fury by the politically offended, but not answered with substantive scientific evidence to the contrary.

This is why I hold back a little from giving full credence to science as a discipline -- its practitioners aren't immune from the human need to be right. Step a little out of the conventional-wisdom consensus, and the pillars of open inquiry turn into Boyd K. Packer on a bad day.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2005, 11:53 AM

"Soundly rejected" in the same sense as Charles Murray's IQ research was "soundly rejected"

Very good comparison. They both may be technically correct, but the damage those kinds of statements make may do more social damage than the benefit of announcing their findings. (at least I assume that that's the position of the opposition.) If you happen to be a white male, it's no big deal, but to women and people of African descent they could be very discouraging. Overall, humans of all types are very capable of entering into a large variety of fields of study, and are naturally drawn to the ones they are best suited for. What's the benefit of scientific data that shows racial or gender inferiority or superiority?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 27 2005, 08:11 PM

When I go to the supermarket and look in the meat section, I naturally select the USDA Choice Porterhouse steak and naturally ignore the ground round.

So what's for dinner tonight, sweetie?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Jan 28 2005, 12:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Jan 28 2005, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2005, 11:53 AM

"Soundly rejected" in the same sense as Charles Murray's IQ research was "soundly rejected"

Very good comparison. They both may be technically correct, but the damage those kinds of statements make may do more social damage than the benefit of announcing their findings. (at least I assume that that's the position of the opposition.) If you happen to be a white male, it's no big deal, but to women and people of African descent they could be very discouraging. Overall, humans of all types are very capable of entering into a large variety of fields of study, and are naturally drawn to the ones they are best suited for. What's the benefit of scientific data that shows racial or gender inferiority or superiority?

For one thing, there's the benefit of knowing things as they are. I'm really not a big fan of distorting science for social reasons. You wind up building rickety houses of cards, with potentially disastrous results. Ditto for "faithful history" within the Church.

Another problem with deciding that a particular scientific discovery is too hot for society to handle is that it tends to corrupt science, by allowing the political wisdom of the day to dominate the process by which the facts upon which such consenses are based, are discovered. Once you decide to let sociology trump evidence in one context, it invites further such exceptions, until you start having a society that is more and more divorced from reason.

Murray's research was less about differences in average IQ between different populations, than with a theory of a developing "cognitive elite." That is, intelligence does seem to have a genetic component. In the modern economy, wealth and status are increasingly correlated with intelligence. Smart, rich people tend to marry other smart, rich people, thus potentially further concentrating intelligence-enhancing genes and the corresponding status.

My thinking is that excellence will rise regardless of what people know about the relative concentrations of traits. Even though African-Americans thoroughly dominate basketball, it shouldn't discourage others from trying their best and rising as far as they can. (I think Yao Ming is currently outpolling Shaq for NBA MVP.) A brilliant female mathematician isn't going to be discouraged by a study showing that, on average, more males than females will have her gifts; she'll just conclude, based on her success, that she is one of the (smaller) group of women who have the chops to compete with and beat the best.

If a showing that another ethnic group has a higher average IQ than mine, it would only discourage me from rising as far as I can if I'm one of the aforementioned chowderheads who can't tell the difference between a stereotype and an average. If Japanese and Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs on average than my group, so what?

[Traveler]

Freud had a theory of why men became the hunter-gatherer and women became domestic. In his published theory he claimed that if the man were left to tend the fire he would pee on it. Based on my experience as a scout master – I think he was on to something.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

One time on a long flight I sat next to a genetic scientist. Very interesting. I did ask a question: - In light of predators eliminating week individuals in a species to strengthen the population, what possible effects could social efforts to help handicap (mental and physical) have on the human population in the long term?

He informed me that there had been a number of studies on this subject and that he had personally been involved in a government grant on this very subject. He also informed me that none of the findings would ever be published because of politics involved.

Most of us religious types do not believe the human race will continue for another 100,000 years (end of the world). It might be interesting to consider how man’s social thinking would evolve over the next 100,000 if the second coming did not occur to straighten out the mess we are making even with our most humane efforts.

The Traveler

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 28 2005, 11:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 28 2005, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Jan 27 2005, 08:07 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 27 2005, 11:19 AM

Has anyone been following the hoohah over Harvard University president Lawrence Summers' comment at an academic conference that gender-based cognitive differences might explain some of the underrepresentation of women in mathematical academic positions?

He was promptly denounced as a horribly biased caveman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan26.html

Yea, saw that but to be fair, the critics did say that he was harping on already soundly rejected premises.

"Soundly rejected" in the same sense as Charles Murray's IQ research was "soundly rejected" -- i.e. subjected to much sound and fury by the politically offended, but not answered with substantive scientific evidence to the contrary.

This is why I hold back a little from giving full credence to science as a discipline -- its practitioners aren't immune from the human need to be right. Step a little out of the conventional-wisdom consensus, and the pillars of open inquiry turn into Boyd K. Packer on a bad day.

PD--no discipline merits FULL credence. They all are full of human beings with human failings--that doesn't take away from the commonly and rightly held ideal that the scientific method has proven itself as the best approach to truth about the observable universe yet devised (judging by the shear quantify of information amassed.)

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+Jan 28 2005, 12:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Jan 28 2005, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2005, 11:53 AM

"Soundly rejected" in the same sense as Charles Murray's IQ research was "soundly rejected"

Very good comparison. They both may be technically correct, but the damage those kinds of statements make may do more social damage than the benefit of announcing their findings. (at least I assume that that's the position of the opposition.) If you happen to be a white male, it's no big deal, but to women and people of African descent they could be very discouraging. Overall, humans of all types are very capable of entering into a large variety of fields of study, and are naturally drawn to the ones they are best suited for. What's the benefit of scientific data that shows racial or gender inferiority or superiority?

You make a good point. Even if the research is correct--it still remains that 45% of Blacks are smarter than 50% of whites. Or that, say, 40% of women are better at math and science than 50% of the men. Chew on that for a minute.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 28 2005, 05:01 PM

One time on a long flight I sat next to a genetic scientist. Very interesting. I did ask a question: - In light of predators eliminating week individuals in a species to strengthen the population, what possible effects could social efforts to help handicap (mental and physical) have on the human population in the long term?

He informed me that there had been a number of studies on this subject and that he had personally been involved in a government grant on this very subject. He also informed me that none of the findings would ever be published because of politics involved.

Most of us religious types do not believe the human race will continue for another 100,000 years (end of the world). It might be interesting to consider how man’s social thinking would evolve over the next 100,000 if the second coming did not occur to straighten out the mess we are making even with our most humane efforts.

The Traveler

Frankly, I disagree with your assumption that the world is worse today than yesteryear. By almost every measure humans are doing better, not worse. We do have a problem to solve--how to allow the number of humans to increase without poluting the air, land and sea to the point where the earth become uninhabitable. Short of that problem, humans are better fed, live longer, have more leisure time, have better medical care, have more life choices than ever before. There have always been wars, human rights abuses and other social evils. It would be hard to prove that this in any worse today than in the past---and there is plenty of reason to believe that the human condition will be even better in the future. To avoid addressing long term problems like environmental polution because of a "second coming" would be very short sighted. I don't think God would approve of our neglecting the Earth just because we think He is going to come back and "clean up our mess".

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 28 2005, 05:01 PM

One time on a long flight I sat next to a genetic scientist. Very interesting. I did ask a question: - In light of predators eliminating week individuals in a species to strengthen the population, what possible effects could social efforts to help handicap (mental and physical) have on the human population in the long term?

He informed me that there had been a number of studies on this subject and that he had personally been involved in a government grant on this very subject. He also informed me that none of the findings would ever be published because of politics involved.

Most of us religious types do not believe the human race will continue for another 100,000 years (end of the world). It might be interesting to consider how man’s social thinking would evolve over the next 100,000 if the second coming did not occur to straighten out the mess we are making even with our most humane efforts.

The Traveler

As to whether preserving "inferior" individuals---whether it is in the best interests of the human race to preserve the inferior, using the rationale that natural selection bodes against it, I say, "That is the price we pay for being humans, and not simply wild beasts". We don't put our handicapped in gas chambers because that is not who and what we are. The altruistic or compassionate gene is in us for a reason--either God gave it to us or nature selected for it, or it is simply the result of our ability to think rationally. What ever the case, that doing away with the handicapped and preventing them from reproducing would reduce the number of handicapped humans is something even a retarded person could figure out. That isn't the issue. The question is, should our goals, as humans, be to enhance the intellectual quality of the human race at the expense of our very souls?

I think society can function fine caring for the handicapped and the mentally inferior. If you believe in Jesus, that was the very essence of his message. He said that if we DON'T do it we are indeed lost, spiritually, at least.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 29 2005, 10:53 AM

I don't think God would approve of our neglecting the Earth just because we think He is going to come back and "clean up our mess".

A big AMEN to that!