Essay On Summers Comments On Women In Science

[[email protected]]

which should have been about why Americans aren't choosing
science and math. The current ads by one of the teachers'
unions is bitching about how they have to teach math and
English instead of art.<<

COMMENT:

Oh, that's a good question, but I think the answer's sort of obvious.
Any political sphere will eventually be taken over by politicians. By
"political sphere" I mean one in which power is derived
verbally/socially, by means of who you can convince or coerce, or how
loud you can wail, how well you kiss ass, or how good your debating
skillls are. As opposed to other spheres in life, where power comes
from how well you can bust heads, manipulate a machine, manipulate raw
nature, etc. Neither machines or nature being particularly susceptable
to threats or verbal skills (although mankind has a long long history
of thinking otherwise-- see magic, shamanism, religion both "primitive"
and not, etc, etc. The rise of technology in just the last half
millennium is due partly to a VERY late post rennaisance recognition
that "magical" or verbal attempts to control nature are worth shit).

There are famously few engineers and physicists in congress. Do we need
some huge academic study to figure out why? Should we hear from the
president of Harvard on the question? But the question of why there's
so little love of the physical sciences in modern academia and
teacher's unions, is merely the flip side of this, and has the same
underlying mechanism. These are simply not the same kinds of people,
that's all.

People differ in how they look to control the world, in order to get
power (which is the goal of all human existance, since it leads to
reproductive success). (1) There are people whose approach to the world
is to get power by means of rhetoric (these days, "giving the
disenfranchised a 'voice'-- see pure whining). This is essentially an
infantile approach, since all humans start out in this mode. Some never
leave, though, and we call these "progressives." (2) There are other
people whose approach to the world is by means of theft, or bonking
somebody on the head (these people perpetually wear helmets--- see BD
in Doonsbury). These are conservatives and violent criminals (hard to
tell apart sometimes). (3) there are merchants and salesmen and
huckters whose first instinct is to buy or trade for it, and finally
(4) there are people whose approach is to take it apart, see how it
works, build a device to get what you want. Math and the natural
sciences are obviously here. [There's some math in business and
wheeling and dealing also; business requires both sorts of skill sets].


The nonverbal math-and-mechanics oriented people flee the verbal wars
of academia and politics as fast as they can, normally. They have been
kept in academics historically only because of academia's domination by
men (who, with the exception of a few natural dramatic actors, I think
tend toward the last three categories of power-grabbing). Now that the
era of male domination in academia is ending, with only the whiners
left, the engineers and businessmen are simply going to be found
elsewhere, Because they simply cannot stand the rules of the odious
power structure that results in any place when politicians completely
take over.

Your essay is exactly the rhetoric that is done to avoid discussing
the real problem.

So where are the math geeks to be found? Usually running their own
companies

This is a contradiction. Math types don't really like running
businesses because it involves politics which implies that
one's success relies completely on social interaction done well.

.. and thanking god they're out of academia.

I have spent the last 10 years trying find the geeks and
pointing their itch and how many different ways they can
scratch it. Most of the time all I need to do is observe
that they have the itch and give them permission to scratch
it. I don't even have to say more than one sentence about
the "how" of the biz.

The most amazing thing is that all they need is permission.
Now, think about that in depth. You'll begin to define
the real problem. EEO was designed to withhold that permission.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[[email protected]]

which should have been about why Americans aren't choosing
science and math.<<


The subset of this question was also addressed by him and I give him an
E for missing what I think is one part of the big picture. For those
people who do chose the sciences, why are the women to be found almost
exclusively in the life sciences, and those that deal with human
beings?

I can tell you that. It's the branch of science that has
the most production potential for continuation of the species.

Here's my take on it. This has nothing to do with math skills at all,
except in a derivative way. There is less math in the life sciences

Then the biology biz has changed a lot since I went to school.

To get a biology degree back then one ended up with almost
a chemistry major just for the prerequisites one had to take.
A bio major also had to have physics. As an undergrad I had
to do a hell of a lot of math when I took my bio, chem, and
physics labs.

OTOH, the medical profession isn't as rigorous.

BECAUSE of the sorts of people who go into the life sciences, not the
other way around. In other words, women don't avoid physics because
it's so math-intensive. Rather physics is so math-intensive as a
science because the people it interests tend to be the sort of people
who are very very good at math. And these people in turn are often
uninterested in doing statistics and the kinds of math things that
biologists and economists do. Until they reach their 40's, if ever. So
such people tend to study subatomic particles instead of insects or
viruses. Quarks instead of jaguars, if you will.

Because of this, we get this stuff about how it somehow intrinsically
*takes* more math to study particles than dolphins. As though there
were some parts of nature intrinsically more mathematical than others,
LOL. Sorry, I'm not buying.. If you have the math skills, you can find
a way to apply them to any science you happen to be interested in. If
anything, biology is messier and more difficult to pare down to
something you can analyze with a mathematical model. But there's no *a
priori* reason at all why the mathematical models themselves should be
any less complex in the life sciences than they are in the "hard"
sciences. The fact that they *are* is a historical result of who was
interested in what. Yes, the math in "acceptable research topics" in
physics, is harder. But that is NOT because physics is INHERENTLY more
mathematical than (say) physiology. Rather, mathematical applications
have been furthest advanced in physics because those very few highly
skilled young mathematicians tended to be male. And not interested in
the life sciences at that stage in their career. Women if they are
interested in science, are often interested in life sciences from the
get-go.

Interest can change for individual scientists, of course. One thinks of
the careers of Schroedinger, Delbruck, Szilard, Feynman, Pauling, etc,
etc. At some point all of them looked up from their commutator brackets
and heard the songbirds.

Then you know nothing about genius and how they think and work.

..At that point, they merely felt the way the
average woman feels all the time. Before that, they were in a kind of
high-testosterone shoot em up fugue-state that it really takes a Galois
to understand.

The geniuses I knew and studied were not like this. A genius
has a broad view of existence and is able to apply one idea in
on area to subjects that are completely different.

..I don't think the academic politically-correct
squat-to-piss types at Harvard will EVER get it. Fortunately, the
progress of science (mostly) doesn't depend on it.

Then you are part of the problem. Progress of science does depend
on this longterm. Where are the bright ones going to find
mentors who concentrate on a particular subject? In the past,
this function evolved within the universities and it was called
grad school.

My efforts over the last 10 years has been to preserve knowledge
because I have watched huge amounts be completely destroyed.
Your attitude will ensure that the infrastructure established
to pass knowledge from one generation to the next will be destroyed.

The real battle is over money and power, of course. The big Harvard
debates wouldn't care of fewer women went into the "hard" sciences, if
there wasn't some kind of odd public perception that the "soft"
sciences are somehow less important to progress, or that even the less
mathematical parts of physics (ie, experimental physics and applied
technology) were somehow less important than pure theory. They aren't.
All are equally necessary for progress. The fact is that women have
been working in the sciences since as long as the sciences have been
around.

Sigh! They have been working in the sciences way before the
activity had a name.

..But they've been doing the parts of the labor which haven't
gotten the recognition.

Why are you measuring production based on Hollywood star values?

Just about anybody of average intelligence can eventually be trained to
do algebra, simple calculus, or statistics. Most progress in science
comes from hard work, curiosity, self-questioning, and relentless
honesty. Much of it can be done by people who can't divide 60 by 5, if
they have access to somebody (or something) that can. The ability to do
the very highest sort of math is a rather Martian trait, like the
ability to play a peice of music by ear on some instrument, after
hearing it just once. Those people who have this kind of talent are
rare, always young, usually male, and often somewhat odd.

NOT IN MY EXPERIENCE!!!!! The only ones _you notice_ are the
young odd males.

... Left to
themselves, they often do not drift into all areas of the sciences
equally. So what? But they can usually be persuaded to work in them, as
part of a team. As for the rest of science, men and women generally
compete on a more or less equal footing so far as basic skills, and if
they happen to have different interests in the kinds of science they
happen to want to work in, so what? It's only our job as a society to
make sure that we don't tend to undervalue the various scientific
fields that women prefer, BECAUSE women tend to prefer them. Other than
that, let the chips fall where they may.

There are days when I would like to knock your sexist blinkers
off your head, but then I become compassionate and decide not
to because you wouldn't be able to handle the truth. Since
I feel like a real bitch this morning, flick...

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

The guy was right.

Not from my experience. The top students in my chem classes are almost
always women.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In general, I think the statements that are half true tend to generate the
greatest amount of controversy. Those that are obviously wrong get dismissed
out of hand. For example: "All women are incredibly stupid."

People also dismiss statements that are true, if they are believed to be
true. "The world is round." is not going attract as much today as it would
six centuries ago.

"Women are no good at math." is half true. Most men are no good at it
either, but that is another story.

My personal experience has been that average women do not take up their
hobbies or work as passionately as average men do. For example, very few
women get obsessed by computers even though many women do work with
computers. If they do, it is more likely to be with a use of computers, such
as chatting, rather than with the technology itself. This unwillingness to
be obsessive about such things is probably a good thing--but it is
different.

But in college, men are far more likely to party and drink than women too.
A think a lot depends on the expectations the school and the instructor
communicate to students. My expectations are that women will do as well as
the men, and that's what happens.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

I'll take scholarship over indoctrination any day. People should be able to
talk about this stuff, especially in universities. They're supposed to be
looking for the truth, not spouting dogma.

And "women can't do science" isn't dogma?

 

[Lloyd Parker]

:
I'll take scholarship over indoctrination any day.

Summers wasn't engaging in scholarship. He was speculating, off the cuff,
at best. That is more akin to what people people do at a bar, over a
beer.

First, he said explicitly that he's going to speculate. Second, his
"speculations" were based on existing observations.

When's the last time he taught science or math?

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.

Straight from a PC manual, this one.


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".


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.
So now you crossed the boundary from spewing PC gibberish to plain
lying. Which is about what could've been expected.

And if he'd said that about blacks or Jews instead of women?

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In the land of PC any discussion of inherent or intrinsic ability or
inclination is taken as prima-facia evidence of Fascism. Any test in
which women do poorly (such as muscular power) or in which "persons of
color" do poorly (i.q. tests) is prima-facia evidence that the test is
(1) wrong; (2) irrelevent (3) biased. Any hint that some people are
better at somethings than others is evidence of Evil.

In the land of PC only Shi'ite egalitarianism is on the paths of
righteousness.

Bob Kolker

OTOH, relegating a gender to second-class status is a mark of religious
fundamentalism.

 

[Robert Kolker]

In his words, "And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in
exactly the order that I just described". He presents his view.
Perfectly legitimate, that's how discussion among reasonable people
are being conducted. What PC garbage considers appropriate, that's
another story.

In the land of PC any discussion of inherent or intrinsic ability or
inclination is taken as prima-facia evidence of Fascism. Any test in
which women do poorly (such as muscular power) or in which "persons of
color" do poorly (i.q. tests) is prima-facia evidence that the test is
(1) wrong; (2) irrelevent (3) biased. Any hint that some people are
better at somethings than others is evidence of Evil.

In the land of PC only Shi'ite egalitarianism is on the paths of
righteousness.

Bob Kolker

 

[Lloyd Parker]

No one has relegated a gender to anything. Admission to college is on
basis of test scores and recomendations. Admission to grad school is on
the basis of merit. Publishable papers are judged without regard to the
gender of the author.

There are no legal impediments to wymyn entering the sciences. They have
to compete with males and it is a case of the best human winning. If Ed
Witten were Edwina Witten she would be just as smart.

Bob Kolker

Oh I agree, but there are those who, as we've seen, believe women CANNOT
compete, inherently.

 

[Robert Kolker]

OTOH, relegating a gender to second-class status is a mark of religious
fundamentalism.

No one has relegated a gender to anything. Admission to college is on
basis of test scores and recomendations. Admission to grad school is on
the basis of merit. Publishable papers are judged without regard to the
gender of the author.

There are no legal impediments to wymyn entering the sciences. They have
to compete with males and it is a case of the best human winning. If Ed
Witten were Edwina Witten she would be just as smart.

Bob Kolker

 

[Robert Kolker]

And "women can't do science" isn't dogma?

Who says women can't do science? That is so... so... retro.

Bob Kolker

 

[[email protected]]

In the land of PC any discussion of inherent or intrinsic ability or
inclination is taken as prima-facia evidence of Fascism. Any test in
which women do poorly (such as muscular power) or in which "persons of
color" do poorly (i.q. tests) is prima-facia evidence that the test is
(1) wrong; (2) irrelevent (3) biased. Any hint that some people are
better at somethings than others is evidence of Evil.

Yes, yes and yes. Exactly.

In the land of PC only Shi'ite egalitarianism is on the paths of
righteousness.

Beware of any movements which are about "righteousness".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com]

There are days when I would like to knock your sexist blinkers
off your head, but then I become compassionate and decide not
to because you wouldn't be able to handle the truth. Since
I feel like a real bitch this morning, flick... <<

Indeed, reading your replies put me in mind of the Monty Python skit.

I'd like an arugment, please.
You don't want an argument.
Yes, I do.
No, you don't.
Yes I do.

Unfortunately, I'm not in the mood to argue with somebody who just
wants to argue. I've just finished filing a number of patents,
publishing an abstract with a university team, and am in the process of
trying to coordinate the manufacture of a completely new
pharamaceutical product. I understand teamwork and innovation, thanks.
As for the "rigor" of various disciplines, I can directly compare a
few. I have a medical degree, but also have an ACS chemistry degree,
with the minor in physics, so I had to take a lot of biology courses on
cram to get into medical school when I finally decided to do it. I
found the equivalent-level biology easier. But that may only be a
personal thing. And medical school itself is really two different
schools, each with a completely separate skill set required in each.
Few people do it all well. I've since worked and collaborated with a
very broad range of scientists in various fields, and have found that
all of them are smart, but in a shocking variety of different ways.
Most are regular guys in most ways.

As for *Genius,* I've met a few people like Gell Mann, and I'm still
not sure what "genius" is supposed to be, Gleick's essay
notwithstanding (I never met Feynman, but heck, neither did Gleick).
Plenty of people are very good at one thing. Universal genius types
like Ben Franklin are very very very rare indeed, and are amazing, but
aren't strictly necessary. Somebody said that a "genius" is a guy who
has TWO really outstandingly good ideas in a lifetime. But science and
the rest of humanity progress fine with bright people like Darwin, who
only have one. And if Darwin had never been born, there was still
Wallace. Probably no single person advances or holds back progress by
more than a few years. The great organizers are possible exceptions,
but even they are replacable.

You did say one worthwhile thing in your other answer, which is that a
lot of progress involves merely giving talented people *permission* to
act. That is profoundly true. Institutions do it poorly, however,
except possibly during desperate times (wars and such). Even centers
of isolated inovation in peace like the Lockheed Skunk Works and NASA
were driven by the cold war. And even they decay with time. Probably
they are driven by a few special people, the David Kellys or the Werner
von Brauns or whatever, and they drift when these people go, as Los
Alamos did when Oppenheimer left. And the Kellys and the von Brauns and
even the Leslie Groves' have a talent for organization, and a talent,
sometimes called leadership, which allows them to appear to "give
permission" for other people to follow their wild ideas into reality.
But that's not universal genius. It's a talent, sure, but the people
who have it are people like Kelly and von Braun, not Ben Franklin.
They're smart, but hardly universally so (Oppenheimer comes closer to
being a genius, but even he needed Groves to make a perfect team). The
ability of leaders of innovation teams to get things done involves
using other talented people the way a conductor uses an orchestra. The
result can be amazing if it's done well, but when it is, there's still
no more genius in the conductor than there is in the individual
musicians. The conductor's just the schmuck up front with the extra
large ego. In science, they give this guy the Nobel Prize when his team
wins, as they did Carlo Rubio, but mainly because they have to give it
to SOMEBODY, and the guy up front with the ego is the only choice.

SBH

 

[Steve Turner]

My personal belief, filtered through my plethora of biases, has been
that average men do not take up their their hobbies or work as
passionately as average women do. Let me give an example so I don't
seem like a dickhead. Very few men have an obsession for poetry or
other literary artforms even though many men do work with words. (This
is a clear observation, free from any slant by me of course.) If they
do, it is more likely to be with a use of words, such as filling out
forms or loudly asserting macho statements, rather than any art. This
unwillingness to be obsessive about such things (and general lack of
imagination) is probably a good thing, (after all, someone has to fill
out all those damn forms), but it is obviously different from being
truly creative and intelligent.

I don't buy it. I have known women who are obsessive about hobbies,
but their hobbies are different -- things like knitting and craft
stuff. Artistic pursuits, though sometimes also with a functional
result (quilting, for e.g.). Painting, sculpture. Their level of
devotion to these things can match any man's love of his craft, IMO.

I have been to many hamfests (amateur radio swap meets) and have yet
to see a single women buying something. I have never seen a female
computer hardware hobbiest. I have seen few female engine
enthusiasts. There are female shooters out there, but they tend to
engage in the hobby for utilitarian (self-defense) reasons rather than
love of guns or marksmanship. Female motorcycle enthusiasts are rare.

Steve Turner

 

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

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.

There is little questionable about the observation that male students
receive more attention from their teachers than female students in the
same class. What controls are you using to rule out the obvious causal
relationship? When someone runs a controlled experiment I'll be
impressed by the differences in standardized test results.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to [email protected]

 

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Iddiotic statements do not deserve rational arguments, only derision.
Summers presented a *rational* argument, anchored in existing data.

Really? Did he mention the studies of teacher behavior in classrooms?

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to [email protected]

 

[[email protected]]

off your head, but then I become compassionate and decide not
to because you wouldn't be able to handle the truth. Since
I feel like a real bitch this morning, flick... <<

Indeed, reading your replies put me in mind of the Monty Python skit.

I'd like an arugment, please.
You don't want an argument.
Yes, I do.
No, you don't.
Yes I do.

I know this is your reaction which is why I never address the problem.

Unfortunately, I'm not in the mood to argue with somebody who just
wants to argue. I've just finished filing a number of patents,
publishing an abstract with a university team, and am in the process of
trying to coordinate the manufacture of a completely new
pharamaceutical product. I understand teamwork and innovation, thanks.

I know you understand how to get some things done. I also know
that you are quite clever. I also know that you do not apply your
training when you think about certain subjects; you are hardwared
to skip all the sanity checks.

The only reason I picked on this is because somebody has to say
no and this particular subject is one of the weeds that I intend
to eradicate. (you can stop laughing now, Mati).

As for the "rigor" of various disciplines, I can directly compare a
few. I have a medical degree, but also have an ACS chemistry degree,
with the minor in physics, so I had to take a lot of biology courses on
cram to get into medical school when I finally decided to do it. I
found the equivalent-level biology easier. But that may only be a
personal thing.

Medical requirements were always easy compared to a real bio degree.

.. And medical school itself is really two different
schools, each with a completely separate skill set required in each.
Few people do it all well. I've since worked and collaborated with a
very broad range of scientists in various fields, and have found that
all of them are smart, but in a shocking variety of different ways.
Most are regular guys in most ways.

As for *Genius,* I've met a few people like Gell Mann, and I'm still
not sure what "genius" is supposed to be, Gleick's essay
notwithstanding (I never met Feynman, but heck, neither did Gleick).

I use a particular measurement to distinguish between very clever
and genius. It's worked so far.

Plenty of people are very good at one thing. Universal genius types
like Ben Franklin are very very very rare indeed, and are amazing, but
aren't strictly necessary. Somebody said that a "genius" is a guy who
has TWO really outstandingly good ideas in a lifetime.

That's not genius by my definition.

..But science and
the rest of humanity progress fine with bright people like Darwin, who
only have one. And if Darwin had never been born, there was still
Wallace. Probably no single person advances or holds back progress by
more than a few years. The great organizers are possible exceptions,
but even they are replacable.

You did say one worthwhile thing in your other answer, which is that a
lot of progress involves merely giving talented people *permission* to
act. That is profoundly true. Institutions do it poorly, however,
except possibly during desperate times (wars and such). Even centers
of isolated inovation in peace like the Lockheed Skunk Works and NASA
were driven by the cold war. And even they decay with time. Probably
they are driven by a few special people, the David Kellys or the Werner
von Brauns or whatever, and they drift when these people go, as Los
Alamos did when Oppenheimer left. And the Kellys and the von Brauns and
even the Leslie Groves' have a talent for organization, and a talent,
sometimes called leadership, which allows them to appear to "give
permission" for other people to follow their wild ideas into reality.

That's not leadership. People often confuse the two. Some people
call it herding cats. The real good cat herders know how to
keep all the cats voluntarily corralled. Leadership occurs
among the workers. If you rely on a manager for your leadership
then the organization is already halfway down the slippery slope.

But that's not universal genius. It's a talent, sure, but the people
who have it are people like Kelly and von Braun, not Ben Franklin.
They're smart, but hardly universally so (Oppenheimer comes closer to
being a genius, but even he needed Groves to make a perfect team).

Oppenheimer, like all productive people, needed a bullshit
umbrella so that one could spend 100% of their time and energy
doing the real work rather than asslicking.

.. The
ability of leaders of innovation teams to get things done involves
using other talented people the way a conductor uses an orchestra. The
result can be amazing if it's done well, but when it is, there's still
no more genius in the conductor than there is in the individual
musicians. The conductor's just the schmuck up front with the extra
large ego.

You don't understand how things work when there's a bunch
of productive people :-(.

.. In science, they give this guy the Nobel Prize when his team
wins, as they did Carlo Rubio, but mainly because they have to give it
to SOMEBODY, and the guy up front with the ego is the only choice.

That's one of reasons I don't like "prizes" and shit. Look at
this newsgroup and see how much people concentrate on the
"number 1" of some random evaluation list. However, human
beings don't seem to be able to admire people for the unseen
work they do finish but lap it up if there is glitz, glamour,
and a tad of drama in the mix.

Would you rather learn from a text that Einstein used and
made notes or would you rather learn from a text that contains
all of the refinements done after Einstein's evolved through
the physics biz?

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[[email protected]]

Yes, a significant step in the "advancement" of Western academic
intelligentsia towards, what was the phrase, the "ashheap of history".

I read it. Couldn't agree more, I give it two thumbs up. Bah, in case
you're following, you may be interested.

I finally got out yesterday. The essay wasn't available and I'm not
savvy enough to finger out Mishit balks.

I did read, finally, what the guy actually said. I still
give him an E rating of mentioning gender even though he
asked to talk about it and it would take a very clever person
to leave the genderness out.

It also verified my gut reaction that the intelligensia's outrage
was truly smoke and mirrors designed to ignore the real problems.

I was puzzled by his term "socialization". What he talking about
promotions, where promotions mean going from a lower job
classification to the next higher job classification? It was
also clear that this guy also didn't know how to recognize
work done well.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[[email protected]]

I finally got out yesterday. The essay wasn't available and I'm not
savvy enough to finger out Mishit balks.

I did read, finally, what the guy actually said. I still
give him an E rating of mentioning gender even though he
asked to talk about it and it would take a very clever person
to leave the genderness out.

Well, here is where we differ. I give him A+++ for mentioning gender
because it was high time somebody gets this cat out of the back.
Thinking that "if it is not mentioned, the issue is not there" is
naive. It is very much there. On the other hand I give him F--- for
backing off and apologizing.

It also verified my gut reaction that the intelligensia's outrage
was truly smoke and mirrors designed to ignore the real problems.

Of course.

I was puzzled by his term "socialization". What he talking about
promotions, where promotions mean going from a lower job
classification to the next higher job classification?

Ehh? Socialization occurs nearly from birth. This is the process
through which child turns from animal to human.

It was also clear that this guy also didn't know how to recognize
work done well.

Possible, but I don't think it is much relevant.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[[email protected]]

There is little questionable about the observation that male students
receive more attention from their teachers than female students in the
same class.

Really. Given that the vast majority of teachers, through elementary
and even middle school are female, are you still willing to claim the
above? I would rather say that they receive more "negative
attention", as in closer scrutiny of their behavior, through this
period. And these are the formative years. So, I would rather say
that "there is a hell of a lot of questionable, in the above".

Besides, this is, plain and simple irrelevant to the topic. You
appear to attempt to steer towards the "nature versus nurture" issue,
but this is *not* the issue, sorry. If you've, say, two ethnic groups
such that in one of them one in fifty males reaches a height of 6'6" or
above, while in the other only one in five thousand reaches such height,
then this may have to do with genetic factors, but on the other hand
it may be a result of nutritional differences. But, by the time
you're getting to the NBA draft, it is the situation at hand, not the
causes, that matters. So one of this groups will be much heavier
represented than the other and no, this is not discrimination.
Similarly, if you've one ethnic group where the kids study dilligently
and do their best to excel in school, this may (not, I say "may", not
"is") be purely cultural affect with no genetic underpinnings. But,
by the time it comes to university faculty requitment, it does have an
effect and no, again, it is not discrimination.

As for the differences in standard deviations, mentioned above, as I
recall they appear pretty constant accross various cultures with
widely different standards of upbringing. This rather seems to weight
against a purely social effect.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"