chabot@amber.DEC (Lisa Chabot) (05/27/84)
> Subject: Re: ET sex roles, request for clarification > Posted: Sun May 13 11:41:13 1984 > > 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. ... > He has come up with a conclusion which is philosophically wrong and thus > cannot be [considered] valid. > I am certain that there will be those who will attack me > for saying men are inherently better at math than women. The only offensive thing in Hughes's initial letter on this issue was his assumption that from the start, no one is capable of being fair: the world is going to reject the scientist's research, this newsgroup is going to incorrectly interpret his (Hughes's) statements. And yet, with these close-minded preconceptions about the reception of the research and the argument, Hughes's closes his letter with > Let us study these differences with open minds. It's all very well to urge the other person to have an open mind. Although I know this is a typical human reaction and one that most of us will experience, I feel it is an immature human reaction. But moreover, I know it to be an inadequate tactic to take to convince a skeptical audience. Skeptical audiences will react better to cogent arguments than to remarks attempting to evoke guilt responses about closed minds. I believe this newsgroup to be a skeptical audience, on the average, on most topics--because you'll always find some who disagree and are willing to discuss; if this was a closed-minded audience there would be no point in mentioning a point for discussion. Accusing a skeptic of being closed-minded will probably be a self-fulfilling prophecy--because the skeptic may very will decide to become closed-minded about listening to the person who stated or insinuated this insult. Even if you fear that you may lose the argument, why, there's no need to go about as if you thought that: if you think you're going to lose, you probably will. Enough of this shilly-shallying! Let's get down to facts. I want facts. I want to know when, where, who tried to do research and was ridiculed, or was ignored, or who couldn't get funding because of the real reason that the topic was considered wrong or dangerous or subversive. If it hasn't happened, how can we be decried for what might happen? I want real facts not the particularly offensive in the sometimes enlightening example of the TQ research: > Dr. Jones was dismissed due to widespread protest. He was later > found dead in his apartment (it appeared he had been killed by a > poison dart fired from a blowpipe). Is Hughes implying that there is a conspiracy to repress this kind of research? Surely the conspiracy is not so competent as to keep from the public press all mention of all such research and all mention of related assassinations. It is exceptionally offending to the intellect to read the story that Dr. Jones was killed by a blow dart, with the earlier related deriding of Dr. Jones being a racist because of the derider's claim that Dr. Jones will cause to be exploited the lower TQ of some Africans--does this mean that Hughes believes that there is a conspiracy of women who gun down researchers (or is it just that they withhold sex or food :-) :-) ). This kind of paranoia in net.women hasn't been here to kick around much since Ken Arndt left us for net.flame. This is not equate Hughes with Arndt, since the former is always willing to further explain his point with none of the equating of those who disagree to excrement or Hitler. So, let's get up a list of the persecuted, of ridiculed real refereed research concerning any innate differences in ability between the sexes. I'm going to go track down what references have already been mentioned during discussion of this topic. Of course there's a conspiracy of women--why do you think we always get up to go to the bathroom together (to clean our handguns, of course :-) :-) :-) ). Hey, why don't men get up to go to the bathroom together? Lisa S. Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA 01752
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (05/28/84)
Actually, Willian Hughes description of the reaction of the scientific world to new ideas is fairly accurate according to Kuhn. Usually, a whole generation is necessary before an idea receives a fair hearing. Quantum mechanics initially ran into all sorts of political, ideological and racial objections.
chabot@amber.DEC (Lisa Chabot) (06/12/84)
Said by Mario Vietri at Princeton University Astrophysics(astrovax!mario): > Just one comment aimed at Lisa Chabot when she says that W.Hughes's original > only mistake was to have suggested that everybody is unfair . > There are only two ways in which this statement would be understandable: > first, if we could accept that only a scientific issue was being raised here. > ... The only other possibility is that there were no history, > if humankind had no collective memory to remember the crimes committed in the > name of biological determinism . Ah, the scope of my criticism is being take to be too large! Before I continue, I said the letter contained something "offensive", not a "mistake". What I was trying to express is (and I'll admit, these two aims have at times been garbled together when I try to express them) 1) In one light I could read Hughes's original letter as accusing us net.women readers personally of not being open-minded about pure research, and I found this offensive since most hadn't yet expressed anything about the matter. 2) In the more global light, it has been more often that such research has been embraced than rejected; and I find this straight denial of history to be offensive. Heavens! I know everyone is not fair. Gould is a compelling author, and again I will urge all to read his books. I did read the Epilogue in __The Mismeasure of Man__, in fact, just after I started reading the book (it was back by the index (where I was looking to see where it specifically talked about women), see, and it looked interesting). I cried. I collared friends and shook them and read it to them. (It's okay, they know about me and are used to it by now.) > Ignorance is no excuse . Asking that we keep an open mind on such issues, > is exactly the equivalent of demanding that we keep an > open mind on the responsibilities of German war criminals in the carrying > out of the Holocaust . I wouldn't have made this analogy, so probably I'm one of those pinko liberals, meaning I'm wishy-washy. This should also be evident by the fact that I have refrained from stating a position on the issue of whether or not the research should be done; I fume aylot about whether or not the research could be done, and whether or not it would be pure, untainted by social influences or the predispositions of the researchers. Ignorance may not be an excuse, but it may be a reason. I had no idea about the atrocious law in Virginia, I don't know if such exist in other states, and while it's easy for me to cry, it's less easy to know what to do get things changed (don't say "write your congressman" because I think that may be a beginning but alone it's too passive). Blinders, those things to keep horses looking straight ahead, are not an excuse nor a very good reason, because you'd think the horses at least would eventually decide that something disturbing was being hidden from them. The hype about isolating an inferior race or intellect hides the atrocities being committed on human beings: accepting the hype is accepting the blinders. It's more appealing to label as evil the creators of the hype than it is to make any blame to stick to those who just accepted it, mostly because it is easier to live with blaming a monster than to become reconciled to the fact that there may be a bit of monster in each of us: the part that accepts the hype, the part whose self-esteem is built up by the hype (that's the part that wants to hear how it's part of the superior race), the part that agrees with the hype. But the fact remains, that each and every one of us who lives with the hype without fighting it, is supporting the hype, and is hoping to be supported by it. For an example of sarcasm about the theory that we have to sterilize the dummies or they'll out-breed us and degrade society, I recommend the short story "The Marching Morons" (and its sequel) by Cyril Kornbluth (yes, it's science fiction). [What! You took the story s e r i o u s l y !] > (In fact, in 'Not in our genes', you can find quoted > a passage (with references) by Medicine Nobel Prize winner Konrad Lorenz > justifying the Holocaust on genetic grounds ). Hoo-boy. (I guess we can list Lorenz over there with Papa Schockley) Well, do I remember right--is Lorenz one of those who believes violence is inherent? Or is he enlightened enough to say that the capability for violence is inherent? "Would you buy it for a quarter?!" Lisa Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA 01752
crs@lanl-a.UUCP (06/13/84)
Lisa Chabot says: ...don't say "write your congressman" because I think that may be a beginning but alone it's too passive... Passive or not, it can be effective if the volume of mail is great enough, which brings me to my question: Has anyone any real data (as opposed to conjecture) concerning the volume of mail our elected "representatives" receive from persons favoring equal treatment of women? Charlie Sorsby ...!lanl-a!crs