tracy@hcrvax.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (06/04/84)
The indented text is me, Tracy. Can I wave to my mother? Hi Mom! Sorry this article is so many lines. It has lots of indentation and repeated stuff. > 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 Tell me, will you, just how you conclude that William claims ``no one is capable of being fair . . . this newsgroup will incorrectly interpret his (Hughes's) [whom I will call William--TT] statements.'' You have interpreted his statements in such a way as to allow a not-very-useful critique of what you think William's belief's and debating tactics are. What sort of an axe have you to grind? People often don't write exactly what they mean. I am sure that when William writes ``People will brand the research sexist'' he really means ``Some people (in nunbers I can't predict) will brand the research sexist.'' Just think about an actual speech conversation you have had with someone where you may talk at length before coming to an understanding of the other person's point of view in an iterative way. I think you don't really understand William's point. He points out by saying ``. . . people will attack me . . .'' that there are those who will take exception to his article on points that are not really germane to the issue. Probably because they don't realize which points are germane. It happened. He was right. > 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. . . I often urge people to have an open mind. Do you know why? It's because most of them don't. I am just asking people that to try and avoid an automatic rejection of what I am saying. Perhaps I am asking them to think about it a little more deeply than they otherwise would. I think you are making completely inaccurate and uneccessary conclusions about William's debating goals. . . . 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. Perhaps William is just reminding people (as they often need reminding) that an open mind is a valuable (and very rare) thing. Again, you have wondrous and astounding conclusions. Do you by this statement also accuse me of being immature and manipulative when I enjoin people to have an open mind? Such liberties you take! And you hardly know me. 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. ``Let's discuss this with open minds,'' sounds like a plea to me. Not an accusation. 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). William has probably been talking to people who believe a priori that such research shouldn't be done. It's an attitude I've encountered. Why can't he speculate? Is Hughes implying that there is a conspiracy to repress this kind of research? . . . No, but you don't care, do you? [OK, so I am being a little catty. Sorry.] . . . 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 :-) :-) ). I suspect that William was trying to be funny. He writes, you see, part of the script for the campus farce at Waterloo each year. I suspect it damages his mind. Even without this bit of information I suspect it's not hard to tell that the death of the professor was not meant to make much philosophical contribution to the story. 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. Paranoia? If anyone is paranoid it is you. You turned his plea into an accusation. [See, I can interpret his statement in another, equally valid way. It's useful to mantain some perspective.] William is not paranoid. I suspect that you have fallen into the trap that many netters fall in. To wit: The net is a low bandwidth medium. It tells you very little of the person who is sending the message. If you discuss anything more than what is actually written down, with no speculations and assumptions about what was being said, you run the risk of being very wrong, and very obnoxious. 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. I suspect that William's net posting came from some discussions that he, some others and I had concerning this. What we were wondering was: If there was research that demonstrated there was structural differences between men and women that affected their abilities as a class to perform some tasks, what would be the reaction? Would it be wise to restrict research in those areas? [Note that we were presupposing the existence of such research without regard to the feasability of it's performance. That's a separate question.] I don't know if there are any such differences, and I don't care. If men are better at math than women for some structural reason (and ignoring the genetic engineering fans) that still does not affect my basic belief that people should be judged as individuals, always. Any compromise based on statistics in order to make decisions about people with less effort I consider more or less undesirable. I suspect that there are those who would use such results to maintain the status quo, or to attempt to gain more power and security. I question the value of such results in a world that is a morally immature as this one. [Note: the preceeding apparent implication of the existence of an absolute morality should not be construed as such. In fact, when I say ``morality'' I am speaking of my own egotistical concept of a desirable code of conduct for human beings, based on my own selfish desire for security and happiness.] [Aside: This means that I disagree slightly with kim@emory who in an excellent article said that we should come to an understanding of innate differences (if they exist) and integrate mechanisms into society for turning them into valuable and respected phemonena. I agree that we should do that for observed differences, but I suspect that a society which takes as a basic premise the adaptability of man rather than placing any emphasis on structural differences will better be able to accept individual needs and talents.] 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 ----- William may have *appeared* slightly accusatory and paranoid. That's not enough to justify an article like yours. What nerve was touched? It looks to me that something in the whole discussion affected you deeply and that your response is motivated by anger rather than reason. Fair enough, if true. It happens to everyone. We should learn from the past, however. Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish. Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!... Human Computing Resources Corporation {lbl-csa,ihnp4,utzoo}!... Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvax!tracy
mario@astrovax.UUCP (Mario Vietri) (06/06/84)
From : Mario Vietri at Princeton University Astrophysics(astrovax!mario) I can't resist the temptation to jump on this again . For all those who asked for specific references on cases where a nearly inextricable knot of science and social beliefs was uncovered ... 1) The mismeasure of man (S.J. Gould,Harvard paleontologist) 2) Not in our genes (Lewontin,Rose,Kamin,@Harvard,Open University, Priceton,geneticist,neurobiologist,psychologist) 3) The radicalisation of science (Hillary and Steven Rose,Open University,...,neurobiologist) 4) The political economy of science (Hillary and Steven Rose,as above). ... and references therein . Assorted topics you can find discussed in these books : a) Paul Broca and the correlation between brain size and intelligence b) Lombroso and criminals c) Goddard and the restriction to immigration on the basis of test scores d) Sir Cyril Burt, Spearman, Galton and the falsification of scientific evidence in IQ tests e) The theory of schizophrenia and its social use f) Sociobiology g) Discrimination against women in the physical sciences ... and much,much more . In particular,'Not in our genes' contains a first rate discussion of the fallacy of 'biological determinism'. 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. Even in this case, though, reading of ANY OF THE PREVIOUS BOOKS will persuade you that the QUALITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH carried out by biological determinists does not deserve such concern :the worst, most prejudiced,most unfair research probably ever done is that carried out under the egida of biological determinism .Any of the books above can be used as a reference for this . 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 . Maybe you (Lisa) ought to read the Epilogue of 'The mismeasure of man' , where the story is told of how the state of Virginia castrated 7500 people between 1925 and 1972 , on the basis of the idea that those who sap the strengths of the country (i.e. by definition = those whose IQ scores are lower than ...) should not have a right to reproduce themselves (unperfectly quoted from a sentence of the U.S. Supreme Court which upheld the law ). The victims consisted mostly of white men and women , mostly 'UNWED MOTHERS,PROSTITUTES,PETTY CRIMINALS AND CHILDREN WITH A DISCIPLINARY PROBLEM ' (verbatim, 'The mismeasure of man', quoting from 'The Washington Post',2/23/1980). A rogue gallery of crimes committed by those who claimed that the opponents of biological determinism were not fair , and that we should all keep an open mind as to the results of these researches ( and to their methods, I would like to add) is contained in 'Not in our genes' . 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 . (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 ). Enjoy . Mario Vietri Princeton University Astrophysics (akgua,allegra,kpno,ihnp4,cbosgd)astrovax!mario