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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kech who wrote (102123)	2/25/2005 7:35:56 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793964

<< Dispassionate hypothesis testing is particularly important for practical questions, because different explanations may imply different solutions.>> Postrel offers a valuable angle on the kerfuffle, and manages to deliver it dispassionately. Her frame reminds me of trying to discuss abstractions and do dispassionate hypothesis testing on this thread... <g>

To: kech who wrote (102123)	2/25/2005 8:27:49 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

some women's advocates were outraged that Dr. Summers entertained, let alone endorsed the hypotheses that family arrangements or innate abilities might have anything to do with the success of women in science. I have yet to see anybody complain that Summers brought up the vicissitudes of the "Mommy Track." Perhaps I've missed them. My perception is that feminists are well aware that the Mommy Track leads to second class existence in the business world, and does so also for men who put families first. What I've seen is people pointing out that alleging that women are genetically unsuited for science is, in and of itself, pseudo-science.

To: kech who wrote (102123)	2/25/2005 8:36:08 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Some Economists Say the President of Harvard Talks Just Like Them I don't think so, Tom. You have to put his remarks in the full context of his speech which includes the following. It is after all not the case that the role of women in science is the only example of a group that is significantly underrepresented in an important activity and whose underrepresentation contributes to a shortage of role models for others who are considering being in that group. To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and in agriculture. These are all phenomena in which one observes underrepresentation, and I think it's important to try to think systematically and clinically about the reasons for underrepresentation. There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities .........the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination ....... So that everyone can understand why there is such furor, let us look at what this means in one of his examples: Let us use a subset of white men (jewish men) in the NBA as an example. It is much clearer in terms of under representation. I do not think there has ever been a player in the NBA that does not play on saturdays (as opposed to Sandy Koufax and Shawn Green in major league baseball). There are of course many Jewish men that play at the college, high school, and recreational leagues. The bell curve difference on this would be much more pronounced than women in the sciences. Yet, do you think any economist would logically conclude that one hypothesis that should be looked at is "aptitude at the high end". The scientific logic on this has been fully explored. It has been fully resolved. Dr. Summers is one of the few people in high and influential place in education (that we know of) that does not know about this and want to reopen the case with the support of all the ignorant people in the world. That is what is wrong.