There is little questionable about the observations that the standard
deviations for the distributions of various cognitive abilieties
(probably not only cognitive) are a tad larger for men than for women.
Then how do you account for the results of the Stanford study, which was
referenced in one of the URLs I included but that you elected to elide?
Straight from a PC manual, this one.
Which part are you contesting? The statement that the dogma is thousands of
years old, that it was a reiteration of that dogma, or both?
I know of at least two major world religions that are centuries old which
promote the subordination of women to men - and they are still quite active
in the U.S. So I presume I irritated you only with the "reiteration" part?
It is pointless, devisive, and is irrelevant to the argument so, if
possible, please consider that part retracted.
Too far? He pointed that such difference amounts to a lot when you
get to, say, 4 standard deviations away from center. Takes an idiot
to say that a statement to this effect is "too far".
First, I haven't used any personal insults, so if you can refrain from them
I'd appreciate it. Feel free to humiliate me with facts - I can deal with
that. Secondly, Summers himself says "Now, it's pointed out by one of the
papers at this conference that these tests are not a very good measure and
are not highly predictive with respect to people's ability to do that. And
that's absolutely right." And in spite of saying that it is _absolutely
right_ that the tests aren't highly predictive, he continues on that track
anyway! Hence my "running too far" assessment.
But he didn't say anything like this. He did say, in fact, that
social and cultural factors may have influence and even open bias may
exist. Only, he added that there may be intrinsic factors, as well.
The order of importance and the emphasis of his points are pretty explicit,
and "intrinsic factors" weren't "added" - they were what he considered most
important. He explicitly listed the factors in order of importance, and
intrinsic motivation and intrinsic ability both top social factors in his
analysis:
"One is what I would call the - I'll explain each of these in a few moments
and comment on how important I think they are - 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 in a search.
And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order
that I just described."
The paragraph beginning "The most controversial in a way, question,"
addresses the third factor, and the bulk of it looks to me to be an attack
on it as a factor. I think his argument might have had validity if the pool
of applicants to colleges was already uniform and unaffected by social
factors encountered during grade school and college, but such is not the
case (
https://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/rest_86_2_447_0.pdf).
Sadly, by the time students reach college it appears that the damage is
probably done and there is nothing he can do as an administrator to improve
the situation. Social and cultural factors don't suddenly kick in at
college freshman year after all.
So now you crossed the boundary from spewing PC gibberish to plain
lying. Which is about what could've been expected.
I've never posted on this subject before, nor have I personally attacked
you, so I don't understand what this "which is about what could've been
expected" personal attack is referencing. And I have tried my best to
explain why I believed his remarks were essentially dismissive of the
social and cultural factors.