Support NeoGAF

[Prospero]

Old? Search didn't turn up anything.

Harvard president criticized for remarks

The president of Harvard University prompted criticism for suggesting that innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers.

The remarks prompted Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Nancy Hopkins - a Harvard graduate - to walk out on Summers' talk, The Boston Globe reported.

"It is so upsetting that all these brilliant young women (at Harvard) are being led by a man who views them this way," Hopkins said later.

Harvard Chief Defends His Talk on Women (NYT: registration required)

Dr. [Richard] Freeman said, "Men are taller than women, that comes from the biology, and Larry [Summers'] view was that perhaps the dispersion in test scores could also come from the biology."

Uh-oh.

 

[Boomer]

Well he has a point.

 

[Azih]

:shrug: it's a possibility. But it doesn't mean that there can't be a female Einstien or female Stephen Hawking, it's just a 'on average' thing.

 

[Shogmaster]

I thought it was well established fact that the male brain is better wired for logic and spacial awareness and the female brain is better wired for language.

 

[raYne]

I thought it was because men always picked up the check?....

 

[GG-Duo]

"It's true, but he shouldn't say it."

I seem to remember that quote from somewhere, but I'm not sure where.

 

[TomthebombServo]

I think the on average thing is more true, obviously there are female geniuses.

But it is definitely true that the female mind reads language and emotions waaaaay more than logic.

Waaaaaaaay more than logic.

*ahem*

 

[Willco]

There was a really good study awhile back where they took men and women of equal intelligence and gave them math and engineering tests in an environment with a male instructor, and the men scored significantly higher.

Women, for some reason, seem to fall into this psychological trap of believing they're inferior to men in math and engineering in those situations due to stereotypes.

It's quite interesting.

 

[Boomer]

I think the on average thing is more true, obviously there are female geniuses.

But it is definitely true that the female mind reads language and emotions waaaaay more than logic.

Waaaaaaaay more than logic.

*ahem*

:lol Amen brother.

I don't see why everyone gets their panties in a wad when someone suggests the two sexes aren't *gasp* equal.

 

[slayn]

people shouldn't get in troble for saying shit htat is obviously true.

just take a look around a high level math/computer science class. The Female/Male ratio is so small that it really couldn't be anything else short of either:
women aren't as good as this stuff (though they easily make up for it in other subjects)
or
some dude out there is threatening to kill any women entering this fields and they believe him.

men are programmed to think using logic
women are programmed to think using their sensory input to its fullest extent

even if you don't agree with statements like that, to think that the male and femal brain react and interpret everything the same such that they are exact equals in everything is to simply ignore reality.

this holds *even* when the two subjects at hand are evenly matched in intelligence.

 

[calder]

He could have said it better, but it's nothing that researchers haven't been saying for decades. Men in general do better at some things (math, especially spacial relations and shit like that) and women in general are better at others like communication. None of that means that if you're a woman you can't be brilliant at math, just like it doesn't mean that no males are good in jr. high Language Arts.

 

[TomthebombServo]

He could have said it better, but it's nothing that researchers haven't been saying for decades.

Are you kidding me? "Innate differences" is pretty doggone tame. Sounds like a somewhat well meaning guy who just wanted to be honest but looked for a way to soften the blow out of consideration. Better than "Unfortunately due to considerable differences in the way women's brains quantitively tabulate and value emotion and raw communication over logic, I have come to the conclusion this is what makes them somewhat crappy at math and stuff."

 

[Prospero]

I don't think the explanation is nearly as neat as Summers might make it out to be (though there's no transcript of the talk, so we're forced to rely on second-hand quoting).

If there are "innate differences" that mean that women don't do as well in mathematically-oriented fields as men, then why are there more women on average in graduate-level biology than physics, for example? At the university I attended for grad school, the fields of molecular biology, atmospheric science, and evolutionary biology (all of which require a whole lot of math, as well as knowing your way around a computer) had a much stronger female presence than physics and CS. Anecdotal evidence can't be used to make a general case, but still.

 

[Mario_Hugo]

And which is more admirable a quality? Out of curiosity.

 

[Hitokage]

There was a really good study awhile back where they took men and women of equal intelligence and gave them math and engineering tests in an environment with a male instructor, and the men scored significantly higher.

Women, for some reason, seem to fall into this psychological trap of believing they're inferior to men in math and engineering in those situations due to stereotypes.

It's quite interesting.

I've also heard of a study in which black people scored significantly worse on an SAT exam when they had to identify their race beforehand as opposed to when they did not.

Anyway, the concepts of correlation, causation, and averages seem incredibly lost on some people.

 

[The Faceless Master]

I thought it was because men always picked up the check?....

:lol :lol :lol

 

[Macam]

There was a really good study awhile back where they took men and women of equal intelligence and gave them math and engineering tests in an environment with a male instructor, and the men scored significantly higher.

Women, for some reason, seem to fall into this psychological trap of believing they're inferior to men in math and engineering in those situations due to stereotypes.

It's quite interesting.

You and Hitokage are both referring to social pyschology studies. The results from those basically suggest that depending on subtle factors, such as whether or not a person has to identify their race beforehand, whether an instructor makes a particular comment before an examination, whether the students are lead to believe they're taking a graded exam or one that won't be, and so on, was that it consistently affects their performance due to fulfilling cultural and sexual stereotypes. There are other factors involved as well, particularly pertaining to the childhood environment that can certainly influence a child's interests with long term results. While I don't think there's any denying in some different wiring among the sexes as slayn points out, I don't think that that conclusively suggests that men are better at math by any means; rather, there still remains very defined gender roles in society at large that I would more primarily attribute to skewed differences in the gender make up of scientific fields before wiring.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

It's a possible explanation for the data set. We know that culture, socialization and environment contribute to the gap in performance. They may not be the sole contributing factors. There _may_ be a physiological component. He didn't say that one's gender does contribute, but that it may contribute. The physiological component could work either way. It could be the case that (assuming males do outperform females in mathematics) that females actually do have the innate advantage, and it's just that cultural factors have dominated those. Or it could be the case that both culture and innate abilities have contributed to the gap. This all assumes that there is a gap, which I don't know enough about to speak authoritatively.

Due to ethical concerns, we can't isolate for many of the key variables in any western society. In impoverished nations, it's a possibility (and justifiable for a given level of compensation).

 

[Azih]

Well one thing. Just to address the idea of society defined gender roles explaining this, the resistance to women being doctors was intense and deep seated. And the justifications offered for this were the exact same as the one being offered for math based subjects (men are just better at it). So how is it that the much deeper rooted resistance to female doctors has vanished (seeing as women outnumber men in biology university courses and engineering doesn't have anything even remotely like the old boys club that the medical profession had), but any such prejudice is still hanging around for math subjects (Math, physics, engineering, CS)?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here of course, a complete layman devil's advocate no less.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

The seats are definitely quite deep.

 

[Deg]

Depends. You have to bear in mind not everyone wants to do maths.

Here in the UK. Females do better than males on average in the UK education system. All the way.

For the people spouting 'its teh fact', 'there's evidence' think about where what you say originates from. Much of the studies like this still spouted nowadays by know it alls had racist, religous etc. agendas to them and were there to serve certain purposes.

Now that Harvard guy is an idiot since it should be his job trying to attract people.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal... AND BRAUN! That's what kind of man I am. Your just a woman with a brain a third the size of us men. It's science.

 

[AstroLad]

Well at Harvard everyone gets an A, so no worries.

 

[olimario]

I know this is old, but it needs to be said that he was only presenting a few possible explinations for the fact that men are more abundant and prominant in the fields of Math and Science.

On top of that, where he said it was supposed to be closed and the woman from MIT who ran out and called the press is in the wrong. In the arena of ideas you need to be able to debate and she wasn't able to do that.

Regarding the Lawrence Summers debate, it is remarkable that the halls of academia as represented by Harvard are the one place one can not raise a scholarly hypothesis on an uncomfortable subject. Galileo faced the same closed mindedness in 1633 before the Roman Catholic inquisition. I have read the Summers transcript. Nothing he posed merited the response reflected in "A Biased Mind" (Houston Chronicle Outlook, February 27). The uproar has nothing to do with the science of cognitive development, and everything to do with crossing over into the world of politically incorrect taboos.

Nicely put.

 

[Jotaro]

I thought it was well established fact that the male brain is better wired for logic and spacial awareness and the female brain is better wired for language.

I watched various documentaries about such things and... it always made me uncomfortable to be good at all the attributes at which both men and women are better.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

...I would say this it inconclusive at best. I have so many female profs and im a math major.. In the end perhaps it just takes more practice for girls i dunno some girls maybe need more practice on avg...maybe, but the potential is not lower for a female imo.

 

[Instigator]

I think the on average thing is more true, obviously there are female geniuses.

But it is definitely true that the female mind reads language and emotions waaaaay more than logic.

Waaaaaaaay more than logic.

*ahem*

Mathematical logic. It's a typical male-centric mistake to monopolize the term, and think that logic only applies to mathematics. Just because it's not as easy to grasp for males in other areas.

 

[Tarazet]

I thought it was well established fact that the male brain is better wired for logic and spacial awareness and the female brain is better wired for language.

How about the fact that intelligent males tend to be loners, and intelligent females tend to be more gregarious? In other words, it may be learned, in subtle ways, and not merely innate.

 

[Ghost]

When scientists annouced that women multi-task much better than men you didnt see the the male population go nuts (I would have, but i was busy doing something else). Why do so many people kick up a fuss whenever anyone says women might be worse at things because they are women?


fucking P.C society.

 

[Jotaro]

When scientists annouced that women multi-task much better than men you didnt see the the male population go nuts (I would have, but i was busy doing something else). Why do so many people kick up a fuss whenever anyone says women might be worse at things because they are women?

Put the blame on oestrogen.

 

[Instigator]

I think the difference for a large part is in how it's taught. I know I couldn't grasp it at school, and I dismissed mathematics completely at an early age. As a girl, no one expected me to get it anyway. But once I had to use mathematics in real life, things started to sink in. I was surprised that I understood it, my experiences at school had left me thinking I never would. I'm sure I would have understood a lot of it much earlier, if different teaching methods had been applied.
So even if some of it may be in the wirings of the brain, gender upbringing and the methods of teaching it definitely make the differences more pronounced. That Harvard pres. is probably a part of the problem himself.

 

[DarthWoo]

When scientists annouced that women multi-task much better than men you didnt see the the male population go nuts (I would have, but i was busy doing something else). Why do so many people kick up a fuss whenever anyone says women might be worse at things because they are women?


fucking P.C society.

Maybe because those scientists only made such an announcement after much research and testing, as opposed to just getting up and announcing your hypothesis before substantiating it?

 

[olimario]

Maybe because those scientists only made such an announcement after much research and testing, as opposed to just getting up and announcing your hypothesis before substantiating it?

I'm sure he made this hypothesis without any preparation or prior knowledge of the subject. :lol

 

[FoneBone]

"It's true, but he shouldn't say it."

I seem to remember that quote from somewhere, but I'm not sure where.

It was from a Simpsons episode... the one with the hurricane, as I recall.

Kent: ...and the weather service has warned us to brace ourselves for
the onslaught of Hurricane Barbara. And if you think naming a
destructive storm after a woman is sexist, you obviously have
never seen the gals grabbing for items at a clearance sale.
Marge: [growls] That's true... but he shouldn't say it.

 

[Cubsfan23]

Women rely more on emotion than logic, simple as that.

 

[DarienA]

The missus has a degree in science with a minor in Electrical Engineering... she's also got a middle finger for the Harvard Pres....

 

[olimario]

The missus has a degree in science with a minor in Electrical Engineering... she's also got a middle finger for the Harvard Pres....

He was just suggesting it MIGHT POSSIBLY be a possibility. And he didn't say that NO women succeed, just fewer women than men.

Your wife needs to lower that finger.

 

[Hitokage]

I think the difference for a large part is in how it's taught. I know I couldn't grasp it at school, and I dismissed mathematics completely at an early age. As a girl, no one expected me to get it anyway. [..]

That pretty much says it. In science, you have controls. In order to determine innate differences, you must first rule out any other possible factor... and considering sex roles as well as sexual discrimination still being widespread, saying women are inferior to men because of presence in a given academic field is at the level of self-fulfilling prophecy. "Political correctness" has little to do with it.

 

[Ahriman]

Some of his statements are questionable, but:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

 

[DarienA]

He was just suggesting it MIGHT POSSIBLY be a possibility. And he didn't say that NO women succeed, just fewer women than men.

Your wife needs to lower that finger.

Can you understand why she put it up in the first place? She's tired of hearing this women are the weaker sex, less intelligent in certain areas, etc.... she breaks most norms/curves...

 

[olimario]

Can you understand why she put it up in the first place? She's tired of hearing this women are the weaker sex, less intelligent in certain areas, etc.... she breaks most norms/curves...

He wasn't saying that they were weaker or less intelligent, just that their expertise MIGHT POSSIBLY be elsewhere.

 

[fallout]

He wasn't saying that they were weaker or less intelligent, just that their expertise MIGHT POSSIBLY be elsewhere.

NO! EVERYONE IS EQUALLY CAPABLE IN EVERYTHING!

 

[Shouta]

I've gotten flak for the same exact statement Oli heh. It's sort of the nature of humans to look at things pessimisticallly rather than optimistically, IMO. At any rate, the implication is that men have a specialization in this area of thinking where as women have specialization in others that allow them to excel much easier in said field.

 

[DarienA]

He wasn't saying that they were weaker or less intelligent, just that their expertise MIGHT POSSIBLY be elsewhere.

And it's quite possible most men are dumb as shit(including self in statement)... but we don't need a harvard prof to tell us that either....

EDIT:
Oh by saying weaker sex I didn't mean to say she was tired of hearing that women are physically weaker, that's pretty much a given, but I'll tell you what... I'm not carrying a baby around for 9mos then pushing it out a hole the size of... yeah....

 

[Diablos]

I'm almost positive 99.9999999% of all women are better at math than me.

 

[Aruarian Reflection]

^ Well, it's on average obviously. You're obviously a dead weight for the men's side

 

[Deleted member 4784]

I believe that the president could have been more delicate in his wording, but I don't find either his statements or the nature of his conclusions themselves to be particularly insulting or offensive. I do believe that there have been a number of studies on this very subject which substantiate the conclusion that men and women think and operate on different levels from one another. However, this has little to no bearing on ability and doesn't mean that any one sex is more intelligent than the other. I am also sure that the president's intention was not for his statements to be considered as implying otherwise.

If these women are so analytically gifted in mathematics, then I must wonder what their issue is with the consideration of statistics. There will always be potential for exceptions because there are never absolutes in matters such as these. However, this should only be a consideration when evaluating statistics; not a means of negating them. If more men are recorded as being exponentially gifted in math than women statistically because they have a "natural predisposition" by and large, then I find nothing "stereotyping" or "sexist" in attesting to that fact. I would only be offended if the president used this conclusion to either strengthen or limit schoolastic standards set by the school based on gender alone.

Talk about much ado over nothing. I don't really get this feminism stuff at all. Statistics are statistics...

 

[Hitman]

The Harvard dude is right though.

Women's minds are better geared towards cooking me some dinner and getting stains out of my pants.