Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (93983)	1/19/2005 11:14:47 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

Unfortunately, it has always been common for bigoted people to grasp at scientific studies and leap to sociological conjectures in order to buttress their beliefs with science (the past is littered with such scientifically cloaked pronouncements)- kind of the same thing that the religious do, really- cherry picking science for only those "facts" that seem to them to strengthen their case, and ignoring everything else Science is so powerful, everyone wants a study that proves what they want... (even the religious) While those studies might show a tendency of the group, we know that variability within a species would make such studies meaningless when it came to rating applicants on an individual basis. "research in behavioral genetics is showing that things that people attributed to 'socialization' might actually have a biological basis" ... and that "women might not have the same 'innate ability' or 'natural ability' as men." It's funny really. Some people think there are holes in evolution- just try linking genetics and "things people attribute to socialization". It's funny how people can question one area, and not another... Quite frankly, science is full of things we don't know, that (imo) don't need to be filled with supernatural explanations, or augmented with bigotry.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (93983)	1/19/2005 11:31:00 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

"As it was his personal assessment ... I don't think that such a wide sweeping statement is entirely scientific ..." Hmm. Seems you didn't bother to read the article JC posted or even try to determine just what it was Summers is being lambasted for. It wasn't "his personal assessment" at all, it wasn't "sweeping" and since he was referring to test scores - that is, presumably objective evidence of SOMETHING in need of investigation - it hardly seems "entirely unscientific". Here. Try again: boston.com In his talk Friday at a conference on women and minorities in science and engineering, held at the National Bureau of Economic Research, Summers listed three possible explanations for the small number of women who excel at elite levels of science and engineering. He said he was deliberately being provocative, as he was asked to do by the organizers, and relying on the scholarship that was assembled for the conference rather than offering his own conclusions. His first point was that women with children are often unwilling or unable to work 80-hour weeks. His second point was that in math and science tests, more males earn the very top scores, as well as the very bottom scores. He said that while no one knew why, "research in behavioral genetics is showing that things people attributed to socialization" might actually have a biological basis -- and that the issue needed to be studied further. Several participants said that in making his second point, Summers suggested that women might not have the same "innate ability" or "natural ability" as men. This response was interesting, doncha think? "What he said was extremely interesting," said Claudia Goldin, an economics professor who is doing research on women in academia. "As academics, everyone should look under every rock they can find for the answers to difficult problems. Sometimes the rocks are large boulders and sometimes they have scary things under them." Danged economists - they tend to be so annoyingly rational don't they? Sociologists, OTOH... Mary C. Waters, chair of the sociology department, said students upset about Summers' remarks have been coming to talk to her. She said his comments left her speechless. "Has anyone asked if he thinks this about African-Americans, because they are underrepresented at this university? Are Hispanics inferior? Are Asians superior?" she said. "That's the road he's going down and I don't want to see any university go down that road." Never mind that he never suggested women were inferior in any way. Some people just like to make up things to be offended and pissed off by. As for your post... "I have seen studies of brain anatomy and testing that suggest that some times of cognitive skills are more common in men than women. I think this is in the category of saying such things about blacks (negatively) or Asians (positively). Without actually conducting potentially unethical experiments, it is conjecture. It may even be true, but coincidental or due to complex effects. Regardless, it is a minefield and a person holding a political academic position should be circumspect regarding such statements." Are you really taking the position that scientists should not study differences in brain anatomy or function between men and women? That doing so is "unethical"? That science should avoid "minefield[s]" - i.e. controversial topics? How enlightened of you.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (93983)	1/19/2005 11:31:23 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

:-) You'll like this. Summer is clearly a real humanitarian... The Memo DATE: December 12, 1991 TO: Distribution FR: Lawrence H. Summers Subject: GEP 'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons: 1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. 2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste. 3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable. The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization. ........................... Postscript After the memo became public in February 1992, Brazil's then-Secretary of the Environment Jose Lutzenburger wrote back to Summers: "Your reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane... Your thoughts [provide] a concrete example of the unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and the arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in... If the World Bank keeps you as vice president it will lose all credibility. To me it would confirm what I often said... the best thing that could happen would be for the Bank to disappear." Sadly, Mr. Lutzenburger was fired shortly after writing this letter. Mr. Summers, on the other hand, was appointed the U.S. Treasury Secretary on July 2nd, 1999, and served through the remainder of the Clinton Admistration. Afterwards, he was named president of Harvard University.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (93983)	1/19/2005 11:36:37 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Should we be bigoted and say "What can you expect of an economist commenting on an area he doesn't work in?" Nah- let's just be honest- and say Summers, who is no scientist, and is obviously an administrator with very poor judgment, made a very stupid remark, since he is engaged in hiring both men and women. Although if this gives a window into his thinking on hiring decisions, Harvard ought to be very worried. "Here was this economist lecturing pompously (to) this room full of the country's most accomplished scholars on women's issues in science and engineering, and he kept saying things we had refuted in the first half of the day," said Denton, the outgoing dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Washington. I loved Summers anecdote about mommy truck and daddy truck. Brilliant scholarship- really :-) Women Lack 'Natural Ability' In Some Fields, Harvard President Says Comments Came At Economic Conference POSTED: 4:06 pm EST January 17, 2005 UPDATED: 4:19 pm EST January 17, 2005 CAMBRIDGE, Mass -- 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. Lawrence H. Summers, speaking Friday at an economic conference, also questioned how great a role discrimination plays in keeping female scientists and engineers from advancing at elite universities. 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. Five other participants in the National Bureau of Economic Research conference, including Denice D. Denton, chancellor designate of the University of California, Santa Cruz, also said they were offended by the comments. Four other attendees contacted afterward by the Globe said they were not. Summers told the Globe he was discussing hypotheses based on the scholarly work assembled for the conference, not expressing his own views. He also said more research needs to be done on the issues. Conference organizers said Summers was asked to be provocative, and that he was invited as a top economist, not as a Harvard official. The two-day, invitation-only conference of the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research drew about 50 economists from around the country to discuss women and minorities in science and engineering. Summers declined to provide a tape or transcript of his remarks, but he did describe comments to the Globe similar to what participants recalled. "It's possible I made some reference to innate differences," he said. He said people "would prefer to believe" that the differences in performance between the sexes are due to social factors, "but these are things that need to be studied." He also cited as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral upbringing. Yet he said she named them "daddy truck" and "baby truck," as if they were dolls. It was during such comments that Hopkins got up and left. "Here was this economist lecturing pompously (to) this room full of the country's most accomplished scholars on women's issues in science and engineering, and he kept saying things we had refuted in the first half of the day," said Denton, the outgoing dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Washington. Summers already faced criticism because the number of senior job offers to women has dropped each year of his three-year presidency. He has promised to work on the problem. Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (93983)	1/19/2005 12:08:06 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

My "thesis" is that (for example) if there is an observed correlation between (1) scores on scientific aptitude tests and (2) gender -- than the possible relationship between those two variables may be worthy of a working hypothesis and further scientific investigation. Science should be blind to societal values or preconceptions and should follow the evidence wherever it leads, shouldn't it? Potentially unethical experiments? Science would just be looking for a genetic explanation (or rejecting one), not infecting subjects with bubonic plague. The politics of the matter does not apply only to the president's office. If this were the main research interest of a young assistant professor at a university, how likely (all other things being equal) do you think it would be that (s)he would get tenure in the biology department?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (93983)	1/19/2005 12:41:04 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

Don't miss: Harvard president scolded By Associated Press Wednesday, January 19, 2005 CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - A Harvard faculty committee says recent remarks by the university's president do not serve the school well. Lawrence Summers told an economics conference Friday that innate differences between the genders might help explain why women don't do as well in science and math. The remark offended some participants, leading at least one professor to walk out. The Harvard faculty committee says Summers' statements could hurt efforts to recruit female scholars -- and that his words send ``mixed signals'' to the high achievers. The panel also suggests a university president always represents the school and never ``speaks entirely as an individual.'' For a second time, Summers has apologized ``for any adverse impact,'' saying he misjudged the effects of his role as a conference participant.