|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:33 PM January 21st, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"The Oddities At the Top of the Heap and the Bottom of the Barrel
Are Mostly Male
Males and females differ very little in most intellectual abilities.32 But two differences that do exist are apt to affect the gender composition of the MIT faculty:
* People at the extremes, whether the very top or the very bottom, are likely to be males. A professor of mathematics at MIT is about as extreme in mathematical ability as it is possible to get. Conversely, more males appear in the ranks of the learning disabled.
* Males are more apt to possess high levels of certain narrow and specific spatial abilities important to success in engineering and some of the physical sciences. 33
Few people are aware of a fascinating phenomenon that goes far in explaining both the sex imbalance of the faculty at MIT and another disturbing fact---why so many more males than females appear in the ranks of the most distinguished scientists, such as Albert Einstein or Richard Feynman or Stephen Hawking. This is the crucial point: Males are more variable than females–more males show up at the top of the heap and at the bottom of the barrel (See Figure 1). 34
Figure 1
On Most Tests, Males and Females Score About the Same–But More Males Are At the Bottom of the Barrel and at the Top of the Heap.*
* Based on 74 tests given to nationally representative samples of 12th graders
Source: Nancy S. Cole. The ETS Gender Study: How Females and Males Perform in Educational Settings: Educational Testing Service, May 1997, p. 19. Reprinted by permission of Educational Testing Service, the copyright owner.
Charles Darwin pointed out the greater variability of males in The Descent of Man, first published in 1871. Not only are males more diverse than females, Darwin concluded, after a long study of domesticated animals. Among human beings, he says (citing other research of the period), males also have more "abnormalities."35 The variability thesis, historically controversial, is now generally accepted.
That more males are found in virtually every category of emotional, behavioral, or neurological impairment is undisputed. Males outnumber females by 2 to 1 in special education programs.36 As Diane Halpern points out in her review of the literature on sex differences:
Males are overrepresented at the low-ability end of many distributions, including the following examples: mental retardation (some types), majority of attention deficit disorders, delayed speech, dyslexia (even allowing for possible referral bias), stuttering and learning disabilities and emotional disturbances.37
These afflictions show up even before birth, before cultural influences have had a chance to kick in. Male fetuses are almost twice as likely to be involved in toxemia of pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, and birth trauma.38
In short, a randomly selected individual who is mentally retarded, suffering from a birth defect, or who is mentally ill is most probably male. But women are more apt to look upward with envy than downward with relief. The same variability and the same vulnerability that makes males more susceptible to developmental disorders also makes them more apt to have other unusual traits---like extraordinary talent in mathematics or physics. Males are especially more variable than females on measures of quantitative and spatial ability, the very abilities important to achievement in mathematics and the physical sciences. 39
Exceptionally high intellectual ability is an oddity, just as is exceptionally low intellectual ability. Oddities, rarities, extremes of all kinds, are far more common among males. We do not call individuals with highly valued characteristics "oddities" but they are oddities all the same.
At the extremes, the difference in mathematical abilities in males and females can be startling. The talent searches which began with the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth at Johns Hopkins in 1971 have included over a million students. The ratio of males to females who score at or above 700 on the SAT-M at age 13 is astonishing---13 males for every 1 female.40 Cultural influences may well play a part in this extreme disparity. The gender gap among Asians in top mathematical talent is far less---4 males for every 1 female. Still, even in Asian families, noted for encouraging both male and female children to choose scientific careers, males are four times more likely to score at the extremes.
Given the tendency of males to occupy the extremes---both the bottom of the barrel and the top of the heap---it should surprise no one that the faculty of the MIT School of Science is mostly male. Of course, some women will appear at the top. Women are clearly among the top scientists in the world. But males would outnumber them by wide margins without any gender discrimination at all."
http://www.uaf.edu/northern/mitstudy/
The link discusses and refutes Hopkins MIT study on sexism against women....Not only that the group doing the study itself wasn't represntative on gender equality, it says 2/3rds were women if I remember correctly. Worth a read....
"The MIT Study Falls Below Elementary
Standards for Scientific Evidence
1. The senior women at MIT were judge and jury of their own complaints. The chair of the MIT committee evaluating the charge of gender discrimination was Nancy Hopkins herself, the chief complainant. Two-thirds of the committee members were other senior women in the School of Science, interested parties who would personally profit from a finding of gender discrimination, and in fact did profit, gaining increased salaries, increased research budgets, more laboratory space and other perks.
2. The MIT report presents no objective evidence whatsoever to support claims of gender discrimination in laboratory space, salary, research funds, and other resources.
3. MIT is keeping the facts secret, claiming that "confidentiality" is required on such matters as sex differences in square feet of laboratory space. Science depends on the disclosure of data on which claims are based.
4. The "universal problem" of gender discrimination trumpeted in the MIT Study boils down to the subjective perceptions of senior women (not the junior women) in only three of the six departments at MIT’s School of Science. Even these perceptions–evidence of nothing but personal feelings–were not counted and measured according to accepted scientific standards in the social sciences
5. The claims by the senior women in the School of Science that, as "pioneers" in science, they are "exceptional" and "above the average MIT faculty" are unproved . An independent study by Professor James Guyot of Baruch College reveals that about the same percentage of senior MIT women (32%) and senior MIT men (34%) have been elected to membership in prestigious scientific academies. But in the MIT Biology Department, where the discrimination uproar started, the difference in scientific stature in favor of the senior men is quite large."
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:40 PM January 21st, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
By the way. I have read i many places that Albert Einstien had dyslexia or some similar "learning disorder". I'm not so sure it's a disorder, but possibly a different way some people's brains work, usually effecting men. Of course I may be a little biased, I have mild dyslexia.
"Chapter One.
Usually when people hear the word dyslexia they think only of reading, writing, spelling, and math problems a child is having in school. Some associate it only with word and letter reversals, some only with slow learners. Almost everyone considers it some form of a learning disability, but the learning disability is only one face of dyslexia.
Once as a guest on a television show, I was asked about the "positive" side of dyslexia. As part of my answer, I listed a dozen or so famous dyslexics. The hostess of the show then commented, "Isn't it amazing that all those people could be geniuses in spite of having dyslexia."
She missed the point. Their genius didn't occur in spite of their dyslexia, but because of it!
Having dyslexia won't make every dyslexic a genius, but it is good for the self-esteem of all dyslexics to know their minds work in exactly the same way as the minds of great geniuses. It is also important for them to know that having a problem with reading, writing, spelling, or math doesn't mean they are dumb or stupid. The same mental function that produces a genius can also produce those problems.
The mental function that causes dyslexia is a gift in the truest sense of the word: a natural ability, a talent. It is something special that enhances the individual.
Dyslexics don't all develop the same gifts, but they do have certain mental functions in common. Here are the basic abilities all dyslexics share:
1. They can utilize the brain's ability to alter and create perceptions (the primary ability).
2. They are highly aware of the environment.
3. They are more curious than average.
4. They think mainly in pictures instead of words.
5. They are highly intuitive and insightful.
6. They think and perceive multi-dimensionally (using all the senses).
7. They can experience thought as reality.
8. They have vivid imaginations.
These eight basic abilities, if not suppressed, invalidated or destroyed by parents or the educational process, will result in two characteristics: higher than normal intelligence, and extraordinary creative abilities. From these the true gift of dyslexia can emerge -- the gift of mastery.
The gift of mastery develops in many ways and in many areas. For Albert Einstein it was physics; for Walt Disney, it was art; for Greg Louganis, it was athletic prowess."
http://www.dyslexia.com/bookstore/firstchapter.htm
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 04:47 AM January 27th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"evidence of nothing but personal feelings"
That's good enough. Women's ways of knowing are inherently superior (even though everything is socially constructed).
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:04 PM January 21st, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It's really high time for more people to stand up to this nonsense. It isn't just that there really are natural differences in men's and women's abilities. This whole affair is a stupid distraction from the most important educational issues today: the drugging of millions of boys with Ritilin, their poor educational performance, and the male/female portions of college graduates falling way to 42%/ 58%. Gutless wonders like Summers are allowing the deteriorating educational opportunities for males to be ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:00 PM January 22nd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Gandy, NOW's President, declares on the NOW.org site --
"The National Organization for Women calls for the resignation of Harvard University President Lawrence Summers, who has failed to lead the prominent (and previously all-male) university toward true inclusion of women. His recent comments generated a firestorm of response from Harvard/Radcliffe women who were outraged that he would embarrass Harvard with such a public demonstration of sexism and ignorance."
If NOW's outrage is over demonstrating "sexism and ignorance.." then the liberated gals at NOW might wish to reflect on their own track record as the premier source of sexist bile, uninformed opinion, deliberate lies, and social malice.
An additional statement by Dr. Donna J. Nelson, Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Oklahoma proposes -
"Instead of arguing points that may be flawed, irrelevant, or uninformed, I propose that we move to a more productive approach for solving issues facing women and minorities in science. I propose that there are other "hypotheticals" to account for women's lower numbers and proportions, such as discouragement at school, discrimination in getting into top graduate programs, disparagement of their work, and behavior which makes women feel like outsiders."
None of these allegations are supported by any evidence, oddly enough. (The usual feminist "scientific method?") And current trends in higher education enrollment and academic success clearly indicate that BOYS are now the discriminated gender, indeed a clear "minority" in our nation's colleges and universities.
In NOW's PC dementia, even asking questions about gender differences and how they may influence academic achievement has become heresy.
Unless, of course, those differences advantage women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 05:08 PM January 22nd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
The Summers episode reminds me of the case surrounding Andy Rooney's comment about female sports journalists not being up to the level of their male counterparts. He came under heavy fire from the feminists and women's organizations, and then went on 60 Minutes with this heart-felt speech about women being morally superior to men and how the world would be better off if only women were in charge.
Summers made a rational comment about gender behavioral differences based on scientific evidence, and came under heavy fire from the hardcore feminists in academia. Now he seems to be caving into their demands so he can keep his job. This reflects the extent of the Left's influence in higher education. It also gives me more reason to question the quality of teaching and scholarship in the university environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:36 PM January 22nd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Look at this letter from him off-linked from the Harvard home page: http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/wom ensci.html
Harvard is showing itself to be entirely p-whippable and so losing/lost credibility. I won't be doing too much to pester my kid to go there in 10 years even if he has the grades to get it. Speaking of which I hear 'grade inflation' (just did a quick Google search and there's lots of stuff out there. Just look at this place for one: http://www.gradeinflation.com/ and I also found this article written by a Harvard student: http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/030232.htm l ) is now so common at universities even like Harvard that they (grades) are all but meaningless. So it's just a battle to get into a certain school with a certain name just to say you went there. It's like Japan. I hear they have the same thing going on there. It's not what you learn in college that matters but what college you went to. College: a huge rip-off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:09 AM January 23rd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Why pay $25k/year or more to have your child learn feminist nonsense at an expensive private US university? They can learn the same feminist nonsense at a public university for only $5k/year!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
