Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Essay On Summers Comments On Women In Science

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

1) The irrelevance of this is touched on in another post.
2) The standard that argument qualifies as "rational" only if it
mentions *all* the data in existance that maybe, possibly, has some
bearing on the topic, is nonsensical.
3) The studies of teacher behavior in classrooms that you mention are
of the classic type of "liberal arts studies", non-quantitative,
full of impressions and anecdotal evidence. I would not (this is
*****not*****) take them seriously. YMMV.

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

Of course it should come out. He shouldn't have mentioned the
words given the climate of Harvard right now. If he could talk
around the core problem, he certainly could have avoided becoming
the lightning rod.
Thinking that "if it is not mentioned, the issue is not there" is
naive. It is very much there.

Of course it's there. That's why there are laws designed to
ignore the issue.
... On the other hand I give him F--- for
backing off and apologizing.

And that is exactly why he should have never mentioned the _word_.
If he wasn't prepared to take the heat, he shouldn't have started
the fire. Issues like this require withstanding the hissy fits,
while pointing at the real problems.
Of course.

I call it work prevention.
Ehh? Socialization occurs nearly from birth. This is the process
through which child turns from animal to human.

I'll have to read what he said again. I thought he used the terms
in the context of working at a job. Starting in the 80s, we would
be sent to those kinds of classes to learn how to "get along"
with assholes. I was just wondering if this is what he was talking
about or if the word was some kind of college-speak.
Possible, but I don't think it is much relevant.

Oh, I think it's key in defining the problem, whateverthehell
"the problem" is. Do you know what he was really talking about?

He was talking about how to "convince" people to put in the
hours necessary for certain jobs. 80 hours/week are not allowed.
People want the accolades, salaries and job titles that used
to be earned by putting in 80/week.

The sad part of the whole situation is that he didn't know that
he was talking about this.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
 
Of course it should come out. He shouldn't have mentioned the
words given the climate of Harvard right now. If he could talk
around the core problem, he certainly could have avoided becoming
the lightning rod.

I disagree. Garbage should be *confronted*, at the source. It is
precisely given the climate at Harvard right now that what he did
*should* have been done. Only...
Of course it's there. That's why there are laws designed to
ignore the issue.


And that is exactly why he should have never mentioned the _word_.
If he wasn't prepared to take the heat, he shouldn't have started
the fire. Issues like this require withstanding the hissy fits,
while pointing at the real problems.

.... right. So that's his failure. When you pick a fight, you should
be ready to carry it through.
I call it work prevention.

You're a bit fixated on this topic, methink:) Work prevention is
often one of the outcomes, but it is not a goal be itself.
I'll have to read what he said again. I thought he used the terms
in the context of working at a job.

No, most certainly not. Read again.
...


Oh, I think it's key in defining the problem, whateverthehell
"the problem" is. Do you know what he was really talking about?

He was talking about how to "convince" people to put in the
hours necessary for certain jobs. 80 hours/week are not allowed.
People want the accolades, salaries and job titles that used
to be earned by putting in 80/week.

The sad part of the whole situation is that he didn't know that
he was talking about this.
No, I think that you missed what he was talking about.

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

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Jan 1, 1970
0
on 04/12/2005 said:
Really. Given that the vast majority of teachers, through elementary
and even middle school are female, are you still willing to claim
the above?

Since the studies were conducted with cameras and microphones in
actual classrooms, it's pretty open-and-shut. Note everyone who is
biased against females is male.
I would rather say that they receive more "negative attention", as in
closer scrutiny of their behavior, through this period.

No doubt, but I would rather trust the evidence on camera and on tape
than your preconceptions.
You appear to attempt to steer towards the "nature versus nurture"
issue, but this is *not* the issue, sorry.

It was the issue in the speech, no matter how sorry you may be about
it.
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.

Oddly enough, the NBA doesn't care about the distribution; it actually
measures the heights of its candidates instead of measuring skin
color.

--
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]
 
S

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Jan 1, 1970
0
on 04/12/2005 said:
1) The irrelevance of this is touched on in another post.

No; what is touched on is your failure to understand the relevance.
3) The studies of teacher behavior in classrooms that you mention
are of the classic type of "liberal arts studies", non-quantitative,
full of impressions and anecdotal evidence.

PKB. The studies in question were not subjective and *did* rely on
quantitative data, but your argument is relying on vague impressions
instead of hard figures.

--
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]
 
No; what is touched on is your failure to understand the relevance.
As I said, it was touched on in another post. Read there.
PKB. The studies in question were not subjective and *did* rely on
quantitative data, but your argument is relying on vague impressions
instead of hard figures.

Feel free to continue stringing words together.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"
 
Since the studies were conducted with cameras and microphones in
actual classrooms, it's pretty open-and-shut. Note everyone who is
biased against females is male.
About as "open and shut" as the famous "power lines cause cancer"
studies. Very nice till you see a significant number of studies and
you notice the discrepancies. When female students are treated more
leniently than male ones, the authors of thge study say that "this
lowering of pressure makes it more likely for them to fall behind".
When, in different study, different school system and different
setting, they're subject to as harsh a questioning as the male
students, the study says "this makes them shut off". Etc. etc. In
short, any difference, *no matter* in what direction, is taken as
"bias against females". And you recognize, over time, that this is so
since the "conclusion" was there from the beginning.
No doubt, but I would rather trust the evidence on camera and on tape
than your preconceptions.


It was the issue in the speech, no matter how sorry you may be about
it.
No, it wasn't. The issue was aptitude. As in ...
Oddly enough, the NBA doesn't care about the distribution; it actually
measures the heights of its candidates instead of measuring skin
color.

Right, ***exactly***. And they don't feel the need to "balance" the
players population, assuring that "all groups are properly
represented". PC academics, on the other hand, are whining about
"insufficient representation of ..." etc. and refuse to believe that
merit may play any part here. No, this *must* be discrimination, it
is *impossible* that there are any aptitude differences. This was
precisely the point of Summers' speach, that difference in
representation may be the result of difference in aptitudes, not
discrimination.You may feel free to pretend that this ain't so, but, judging by the
example you chose to keep, as well as the one you chose to snip, I
would say that you argue in less than good faith. Not very surprising,
to me.

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

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Jan 1, 1970
0
on 04/15/2005 said:
About as "open and shut" as the famous "power lines cause cancer"
studies. Very nice till you see a significant number of studies and
you notice the discrepancies. When female students are treated more
leniently than male ones,

ROTF,LMAO!

Leniency is not the issue. Calling on students is the issue. Once
again you are trying to put up a smoke screen to cover your lack of an
argument.
Right, ***exactly***. And they don't feel the need to "balance" the
players population,

The issue isn't balancing the student population. The issue is
asserting differences in ability without objective data to back up
those assertions.
PC academics,

The issue isn't PC academics; the issue is blatantly biased academics.
The issue isn't whether to study any hypothetical differences in
aptitude; the issue is whether to presuppose the answer. Right wing
political correctness is no more palatable than the left wing variety.
This was precisely the point of Summers' speach,

No; Summer's speech begged the question instead of asking for an
honest inquiry.
You may feel free to pretend that this ain't so,

I don't need to pretend.
I would say that you argue in less than good faith.

PKB. I would say that you have transcended bad faith and are a
misogynist actively lying to promote your cause.

--
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]
 
ROTF,LMAO!

Leniency is not the issue. Calling on students is the issue.

Leniency has part in calling on or not calling on, as well.
Once again you are trying to put up a smoke screen to cover your lack of an
argument.
You begin running out of things to say.

The issue isn't balancing the student population. The issue is
asserting differences in ability without objective data to back up
those assertions.

Nope. The issue is asserting, not only without any objective data but
in contradiction to existing data, that no, it is *strictly*
impossible that any differences in ability may exist between groups
(be it ethnic groups or genders) and demanding the crucification of
anybody who'll dare to say otherwise. Those engaging in this behavior
are PC-twits. Those yielding their support, likewise.

As an aside, people who actually brought up children (more than one,
so they have the ability to compare) will tel you that by and large
there are differences in behavior, patterns of play etc. between males
and females from very early on, before they even begin to speak.
The issue isn't PC academics;

The issue is PC-twits.
the issue is blatantly biased academics.
The issue isn't whether to study any hypothetical differences in
aptitude; the issue is whether to presuppose the answer.

The only ones presupposing an answer here are the PC-twits. Their
presupposed answer is that there can be no difference.
Right wing
political correctness is no more palatable than the left wing variety.
This has absolutely nothing to do with left wing or right wing. Only
with intellectual honesty. The very assumption that there is anything
"political" involved here shows clearly that your angle here has
nothing to do with intellectual inquiry.
No; Summer's speech begged the question instead of asking for an
honest inquiry.

Only in the mind of a PC-twit does a call for somebody's resignation
for expressing ideas *anchored in data* (yes my dear twit, there is
plenty of data on the differences of the distributions, ask Steven
Pinker if you don't believe it) qualify as "honest inquiry".

You are a perfect example of the problem. And now, that this has been
established, I see no value (intellectual or otherwise) in continuing
a conversation with you. So long.

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

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Jan 1, 1970
0
on 04/18/2005 said:
Leniency has part in calling on or not calling on, as well.

Ah, yes, benign neglect. Such a sound educational policy.
You begin running out of things to say.
PKB.

Nope. The issue is asserting, not only without any objective data
but in contradiction to existing data, that no, it is *strictly*
impossible that any differences in ability may exist between groups
(be it ethnic groups or genders) and demanding the crucification of
anybody who'll dare to say otherwise.

That is a straw dummy. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand,
which was an academic asserting his prejudices as fact without a shred
of evidence to back them up. You seem to have a propensity for seeing
a left-winger under every bed.
Those engaging in this behavior are PC-twits.

Those seeing that behavior where it does not exist are lunatic fringe
Fox wingnuts They are also PC[1] twits.
As an aside, people who actually brought up children (more than one,
so they have the ability to compare) will tel you that by and large
there are differences in behavior, patterns of play etc. between
males and females from very early on, before they even begin to
speak.

Those who actually brought up children notice that there are major
differences in behavior, patterns of play etc. between children of the
same sex from very early on, before they even begin to speak.
Statistical differences between two groups is no excuse for treating
the members of either group as interchangeable parts. Nor does
observing one difference constitute evidence for an unrelated
difference.
The issue is PC-twits.

Such as you.
The only ones presupposing an answer here are the PC-twits.

Such as you.
Their presupposed answer is that there can be no difference.

No. That's the voices in your head.
This has absolutely nothing to do with left wing or right wing.

Of course it does. That's why you're blind to the evidence.
Only with intellectual honesty.

Which you lack.
The very assumption that there is anything
"political" involved here shows clearly

That I can spot obvious patterns of behavior. But please note that you
are being a hypocrite, with your use of terms like "PC twit" instead
of rational debate.
You are a perfect example of the problem.
PKB.

You are a perfect example of the problem. And now, that this has
been established,

All that has been established is that you are a disingenuous,
prejudiced fool with delusions of adequacy.
I see no value (intellectual or otherwise) in continuing a
conversation with you.

Stay not the order of your departure, but go.

[1] Eric Hoffer had it right about the fundamental identity of
left-wing fanatics and right-wing fanatics.

--
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]
 
D

David Bostwick

Jan 1, 1970
0
That I can spot obvious patterns of behavior. But please note that you
are being a hypocrite, with your use of terms like "PC twit" instead
of rational debate.
[/QUOTE]

And your replies of, "And so are you!" have added so much to this thread.
 
Top