csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (06/13/84)
This was my original article:
Why is it that it is taken for granted that all observed sex
differences other than the gross physical ones are assumed to
be due entirely to social conditioning. The evidence is by no
means clear on this subject.
If a scientist were to do a study which tended to show there
were structural differences between the sexes which helped to
explain the domination of men in math and physics, this scientist
would be immediately branded sexist. No matter if his research
methods were impeccable. No matter if he judges his colleagues
and students solely on the basis of their work. He has come
up with a conclusion which is philosophically wrong and thus
cannot be valid.
I am certain that there will be those who will attack me
for saying men are inherently better at math than women. I have
said no such thing nor do I hold this opinion. There is simply
insufficient evidence to do so. However, I do not hold the
opinion that the observed differences are due to "*training*".
There is insufficient evidence to support this conclusion.
A friend of mine (Tracy Tims sometime contributer to this
forum) agrees, but says that if (repeat if! (emphasis mine))
such differences exist it would be a bad idea to prove this
as society is unlikely to react to such information in a mature
manner. I do not agree. The knowledge would in fact be
dangerous knowledge, but dangerous knowledge should be faced
not ignored.
With regard to people equality does not imply identity.
There are observed differences between the sexes. Let us
study these differences with open minds.
From this article Lisa Chabot has drawn many, in my opinion unjustified,
conclusions. The first is that I am sexist because I used the English
he rather than using a construct such as he/she, or rewording my
sentence, and because I used the word dominance to (correctly) describe
the current position of men in mathematics (rather than some word such
as preponderance). Of this conclusion I can only say it is somewhat
farfetched.
A second conclusion is that I have accused everyone on the net of
unfair prejudice against scientists, and against myself. This
interpretation of the above passage seems marginally valid, but
it would seem to me that the intended reading, that there are some
people who would unfairly criticize a scientist doing research
into possible intrinsic (i.e. geneticly determined) differences and
that there are some people who would argue that I am supporting
the position "there ARE intrinsic differences", is more reasonable.
From personal experience I know that there are such people therefore
I do not think the above article indicates paranoia on my part. When
I read an article attacking a position I oppose I tend to agree with
the author rather than assuming the author is attacking me!
Lisa Chabot directs a long and involved quibble at my use of the plea
"Let us study these differences with open minds". The article
to which I was replying had stated that all non-physical differences
were environmental in origin. I do not retract my plea for open-mindedness!
Lisa Chabot draws at least one conclusion which I fail to understand.
She states:
>This discussion has been especially weird, since Hughes started off with the
>premise that it was invalid philosophically to discover any non-environmental
>basis for differences in intellectual performance between the sexes. This is
>simply not true. We've had many anecdotes posted to this newsgroup about
>environmental differences created because of the preconception that there are
>inherent differences in intellectual performance between the sexes.
> ...It has to do with the assumptions in Hughes'
>letter, the false premise that it is invalid philosophically to discover
>these differences. Those who have had to bear the weight of a society's
>prejudice declaring an inherent inferiority, when told that such a prejudice
>does not exist, will not react amiably to such a bizarre statement.
>Some may choose to stare in disbelief as their reaction.
It would seem that Lisa Chabot assumes that the statement "He has come up with
a conclusion which is philosophically wrong and thus cannot be valid" is a
statement of my own position!?! In fact it is exactly this type of argument
I abhor. She then defines prejudice based on an assumption of intrinsic
differences as a non-environmental factor (?!) and concludes that I am denying
the existence of such prejudice. YE GODS and words to that effect.
In a follow-up article to my original article I state:
... Several submissions
have included anecdotal evidence that social pressures are responsible
for observed differences in mathematical performance. I do not deny,
ignore or disagree with this evidence, and could add some more from my
own experience.
This referred to the "many anecdotes posted to this newsgroup about
environmental differences created because of the preconception that there
inherent differences in intellectual performance between the sexes".
Apparently I was not clear enough. Again: I agree that at least part
(and maybe all) of the observed differences in mathematical performance
between the sexes are due to prejudice against women.
Lisa Chabot seems to think that baiting a person by calling him sexist
and paranoid is a good way to promote debate. In my case she was quite
mistaken. My reaction to such tactics is to ignore them. If Lisa
Chabot had wondered why I was denying the existence of prejudice her
best course would have been to have asked me, by mail or in an
article. This would have led to a prompt reply.
William Hughes