boyajian@akov68.DEC (Jerry Boyajian) (05/15/84)
William Hughes puts forth a very good point. Actually, such public dismissal of
scientific research has already happened (actually, dismissal of *similar* re-
search).
Remember back when Schockley came out with data that "proved" that
blacks were mentally inferior to whites? He was derided, villified, and denied
opportunities to present his data in a public forum (eg. speaking on college
campuses). No one was willing to check his data, no one was even willing to
*listen* to him; he was simply branded as a racist, and that was that. I sus-
pected at the time (and still do) that many of the people who villified him were
afraid that he might be right (and they were justifiably afraid, for if he was
right, there would be *serious* consequences, but that really is irrelevant to
the argument at hand).
Nota bene: The above should not be taken to mean that I agreed with Schockley.
I didn't and still don't. But I also didn't think that he should have been dis-
missed without an examination of his evidence.
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC Maynard, MA)
UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian
ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
*NOTE CHANGE IN ADDRESSING*martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (05/16/84)
Shockley's data tended to prove East Asians were intellectually superior to European Caucasians.
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (05/16/84)
A few comments on replies to my article.
Someone substitued race for sex. I do not disagree with this substitution.
However not that in neither case do I think that the results will or can
prove racial or sexual "superiority". Judge mathmeticans by how they do
math, not what race, sex etc. they are.
Insufficient evidence does not equate to no evidence. Several submissions
have included anecdotal evidence that social preasures are responsible
for observed differences in mathematical preformance. I do not deny,
ignore or disagree with this evidence, and could add some more from my
own experience. I think that it is almost certain that social preasures
play some role in explaining the differences. Whether they are the only
cause, or the major cause is something that can only be determined by
careful study. I am not aware of any careful studies in this area (if
anyone is please inform me, I have not actively researched this are and
may easily have missed much). I am aware of a predjudice against making
such studies "as they will only prove what is already known".
I would consider a proof that on the average men are better at math than
women to be dangerous knowledge because of the way it might be applied.
The statement "on the average men are better at math than women" can be
all to easily perverted to, Susan is female, females are no good at math,
therefore Susan is no good at math, therefore she should not be helped
or encouraged. This is the immature attitude referred to in the original
article.
I used math as an example because it is a dramatic one (higher math is
heavily dominated by men) and it is one that touches me closely. I do
not consider it to be the only example or even maintain that it is
a particularly important one.
I hope that social preasures are the only cause of the observed differences.
If this is so we have the oppertunity to dramaticly increase the number
of top flight mathematicians. I do not confuse my hopes with facts.
William Hughesjoe@zinfandel.UUCP (05/20/84)
#R:decwrl:-15300:zinfandel:17200014:000:507 zinfandel!joe May 18 07:26:00 1984 I would be interested in seeing Shockley's research and findings, but I don't know that they are publicly available. If you do, please mail me the source. I would much like to discredit his stated conclusions but I can't till I have his work to read. In your article you state that you don't agree with Shockley. I take that to mean you too dislike his contentions, but maybe you have seen his work. If so, again, please let us know where to get it so we can refute rather than reject. Joe Weinstein
rbg@cbosgd.UUCP (Richard Goldschmidt) (05/21/84)
<Don't read this line> I'd like to suggest a recent book by a brain scientist on this subject: Science & Gender: A Critique of Biology and Its Theories on Women, by Ruth Bleier, 1984.