<p>The Ace is Back,</p>
<p>That's not the important question. The important question is WHY do men perform better in the sciences. Unfortunately, we do not know, for certain, why. As for blacks being better athletes, it's still up in the air whether it's nurture or nature. And are you going to say that Chinese work harder because they're genetically prone to do so?</p>
<p>Ace,</p>
<p>You completely missed the point. There may indeed be genetic/biological factors... the question is the magnitude.
And all scientific evidence shows the genetic differences in mental abilities are tiny, if they exist at all... the differences in the average are MUCH smaller than the variation from person to person...
mathematically, one would say the standard deviations about the means are MUCH larger than the differences between the means.</p>
<p>To put in layman's terms, maybe genetic/biological effects might lead to a 48-52% in women-to-men scientists.. but certainly NOT explain
5-95% split... SOCIOLOGICAL factors are responsiblr for the vast majority of the discrepency...</p>
<p>And this EXACTLY illustrates the point: that Summers raising this argument on the same level as sociological factors reinforces belief in stereotypes that the average woman can't do science.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>You are slipping into self-parody.</p>
<p>h and b, I did not understand the available evidence to be as definitive as you make it out to be. But if there is evidence that is so definitive, why didn't people just demonstrate that, rather than wailing and moaning about how sick and disgusted Summers made them feel? So far as I recall, the debate never focused on the merits of the arguments. Instead, it immediately went personal.</p>
<p>I agree that it was stupid for Summers to wade into this area at all - it was or should have been foreseeable that doing so would give his opponents ammunition that would be easier to use against him than his comments on the military or his suggestions that faculty members at an academic institution should do some academic work. But I also think his comments about women and science were immediately distorted and used as an excuse for the year-long campaign that ultimately led to his resignation. The real issue here was the division of power between the president and the faculty.</p>
<p>My hope is that the Corporation will not shy away from appointing a new president with the same vision for the University, and the same strength of will, as Summers had. Of course, this also comes with the hope that the next president will have slightly better political and interpersonal skills.</p>
<p>Said it before, and I'll say it again...</p>
<p>Summers was not an ordinary member of the economics faculty when he made his comments. If he had been, no one would have cared, and he would certainly still have his job even if someone did care.</p>
<p>Summers was speaking as the face of the entire university. This job has no tenure protection, for good reason: it isn't a research job. It's a job to promote and strengthen Harvard's position in the world. A huge part of that is public relations. Harvard is not Britney Spears, so there is such a thing as bad publicity. Summers attracted a lot of it, which means that he was very bad at his PR job. He'll go back to being a professor, at which point it will once again be his job to think and talk about whatever he wants.</p>
<p>It is, in fact, the turf-protecting faction of the FAS that has greatly damaged Harvard's reputation ... not Larry Summers. </p>
<p>It will be a long time before this damage is undone, I fear - particularly if the assassins view their "victory" as cart blanche to take over, and dictate the result of, the search for his successor.</p>
<p>Hanna, his job is to get things going and to get things done in Harvard, and if he needs to speak his mind to do it, he should be allowed to.</p>
<p>"The Ace is Back,</p>
<p>That's not the important question. The important question is WHY do men perform better in the sciences. Unfortunately, we do not know, for certain, why. As for blacks being better athletes, it's still up in the air whether it's nurture or nature. And are you going to say that Chinese work harder because they're genetically prone to do so?"</p>
<p>If the question is 'why' then what is wrong with his statements?</p>
<p>In response to your question, I think it is a mix of nature and nurture, as it always is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the question is 'why' then what is wrong with his statements?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said I thought his statements were that outlandish.</p>
<p>However, there are too many people running around on this forum going, "DUH! Women are naturally not as good at math! It's a fact!" It's not a fact. That's what gets me.</p>