Good post Ed, all perfectly correct, but irrelevant to the question of women being top dogs in maths at Harvard and why. The normal response to the enquiry is that the evil-doer who thinks about the matter is an ignorant sexist pig who doesn't accept the sacred text that women and men are the same and equally capable and blah blah blah. A simple restatement of the dogma being all that's required to correct the view, along with chants of "baloney" and "humbug" and maybe a brief explanation of simple cliches about "intelligence".
<And yes, in terms of aptitudes, with respect to gender or racial differences it's silly to think that on average "we're all the same." It's even more silly, however, to pigeonhole individual people based on gender or race. Each of us is what he or she is, have the abilities we have and only time and experience will sort us out. We don't need to feel constrained by some statistical probability that may or may not be reflective of the unique abilities that each of us may possess. Ed >
I guess you are explaining that to me? Or maybe just making a general "the sky is blue and grass is green" comment. You are quite right. Did you think I didn't know that? I guess you thought you'd found a racist who pigeonholes members of a race or sex as being "unable to do maths at university because they are a brown female". Weird that you could conclude that from any of my comments. I can only conclude that you didn't actually read much of what I've written. Geode certainly hasn't, or has tried but failed.
It amuses me these days when people say things like "Maoris are an intelligent race", not realizing the racist implication that there are therefore races which are not intelligent or that Maoris are particularly intelligent. They certainly do NOT think of themselves as racist and are really being patronizing and trying to say something nice to show how non-racist they are, ironically showing the opposite. They of course have no data for the assertion.
That's accepting the normal definition of racist used these days of "saying something which is not nice about a race of people, on average", not just on an individual basis. To me everyone is racist, or ignorant. Of course races can be defined by a DNA test [all those who have a particular gene being the definition]. Of course not all races are equal. Some are shorter, some smarter, some sun-resistant, some malaria-resistant, some .... etc etc with millions of variations, mostly unseen, lurking in chemistry and tucked away here and there by simply looking. Accepting that some have an advantage in some respect means others don't, and are therefore less than the good ones - therefore, they are racist. Welcome to the racist club folks.
The answer to that is "Ah, but the races are different, but equal". Well, words don't stop melanoma or whatever variable matters, so that's nice to say, but irrelevant. Same for sex. Males and females are not the same. There are major differences, starting with the ability to bear children and age of maturity of the brain.
<"if it takes two men 1 hour to complete the task, how long will it take for 4 men to complete the task." One of the answers was 1/2 hour and one of the answers was "cannot tell from the information given." I chose the "cannot tell" answer and later discovered that answer was...wrong. I always wondered if they were repairing a watch or moving a 500 pound refrigerator but no one said. >
Ah, that's the old intelligence test hidden in the intelligence test. You have to analyze the psychology of the testers and give the answer they want, not the right answer or an alternative answer or cheeky answer. "Dumb question" is not usually an option.
On the speed versus quality aspect, during 'education' I noticed that and other variations which gave distorted success to unthinkers who could learn a lot in a short time [like Google], or react really fast with an answer like a 600MHz processor, or write really quickly like an automatic word processor - those characteristics being great for passing exams with flying colours and being teacher's pet but none of them related to intelligence as I think of it.
Google is showing intelligence though in that it does excellent associations and gives answers with associations often before I've thought of them myself. It's as though it's thinking one step ahead of me.
Time is usually considered a major part of "intelligence". Stephen Hawking said in an interview I read a couple of days ago that he would leave a problem if he got stuck, and keep coming back to it. One problem he mentioned took 29 years. Unfortunately, intelligence testing can't take that long. It shows that there's more to problem solving and intelligence than quick reactions.
In the 5th form, our headmaster came in one day for some reason and while there, asked the class [physics] which is heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of lead? The crowd said "the same". I didn't have quite the right grip on the answer and it was tough when the mob started baying at the moron who didn't "get it", but I was grasping at the idea that if weighed in a vacuum, we'd get a different result than if weighed in air as the feathers are lower density. So the feathers would be heavier - I can't recall if I got that far because of the shouting down. The headmaster left us to decide.
Intelligence researchers [real ones, not hobbyists] know there are various types of intelligence such as basic verbal and maths testing for a start. Because something is difficult to measure, doesn't mean it can't be. They are paid very good salaries to study intelligence and that's not done because it's some mystical thing that's a waste of time to study. It can be pinned down very well.
After these discussions, my views remain the same. Nobody has said anything to counter the ideas. Nobody has said what effect women maturing 3 years earlier would have on top-rank maths and physics achievement given the educational process to which they are subjected.
Mqurice |
