One needs to look very carefully at not only the source of scientific findings, but also at the context in which they are being utilized. We (as a society) ought to take the time to interrogate the assumptions, experiences and social circumstances of all the parties involved. In my mind, this is one of the messages of this course-- that things such as "objectivity" and "science" do not exist in an intellectual vacuum, and that there really is no such thing as absolute certainty or neutrality. All researchers and reporters of research are "positioned"... Both professors will concede that there is likely some compelling evidence for sex differences in certain abilities. What those are, exactly, and how they would factor into the process and efficacy of education are very much up for debate. In addition, what are the aims of such research? How do (or can) they contribute to a productive discussion about different demographics in science and math-related industries? How do such findings bode for the advancement of equal treatment and opportunity for talented and motivated women? In what way could such findings add to the general advancement of human understanding and pursuit of personal happiness?

These are the questions we might want to ask. I'd like to point out that these purported differences are by nobody's account great, or even persistent. The "debate" is in some ways not about the science so much as their social implications, insinuations, and the lack of trust between those operating in different intellectual paradigms.

I will mention how Pinker thinks that the belief that individuals are born "unisex" and then shaped by environment from there on out is becoming less credible.

Another quote I'd like to add is this, from the Salt Lake Tribune:

"Pinker's point is that men and women are very much the same and yet quite different, and many of those differences exist in every culture on earth. Even in places such as the Israeli kibbutz, which has tried to be gender-neutral in assigning roles, Pinker notes a gender-specific aspect to the division of labor: Women in all cultures have more responsibility for raising children, while men are more dominant in the political realm. Men in every society are more driven by the prospect of sex and are more aggressive in general.
There is nothing to fear from acknowledging that men and women have different psychological tendencies. What we should fear is the hysteria that occasions the speaking of uncomfortable truths. The academy is a place where all ideas should be welcome - free to rise and fall on their own empirical merit. But don't expect that to happen at Harvard any time soon."

The controversial remark: "One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described."

Factor 1 captures the idea that women self select away from high intensity jobs in order to raise families and do other things of that sort. "Is our society right to expect that level of effort from people who hold the most prominent jobs? Is our society right to have familial arrangements in which women are asked to make that choice and asked more to make that choice than men?"

Factor 2 refers to the fact that men may have a flatter normal curve, meaning that more men have abilities at the far end of the spectrum. Summers attributes this to genetics not environment, and defends his view. "Yeah, look anything could be social, ultimately in all of that. I think that if you look at the literature on behavioral genetics . . . the evidence is really quite striking and amazing . . . but if somebody thinks that there is proof in these two books, that these phenomenon are caused by something else, I guess I would very respectfully have to disagree very very strongly with that. "

Factor 3 refers to explicit and / or passive discrimination.Summers thinks that it is true that discrimination plays a role in underrepresentation, but not the greatest role.

It is important to note that these studies niether support nor refute Summers' claims, as they show no correlation to adult intellectual ability or job performace aptitudes but simply attempt to idenfity and classify differences in the way the human brain matures, and the differences in the way men and womens' brains develop and process information. http://www.singlesexschools.org/brain.html

Just something to include. Also I wanted to include this site, because it's funny. Get a taste of what students are sharing that attend Harvard.

"Summers's critics have repeatedly mangled his suggestion that innate differences might be one cause of gender disparities (a suggestion that he drew partly from a literature review in my book, The Blank Slate) into the claim that they must be the only cause. And they have converted his suggestion that the statistical distributions of men's and women's abilities are not identical to the claim that all men are talented and all women are not--as if someone heard that women typically live longer than men and concluded that every woman lives longer than every man. Just as depressing is an apparent unfamiliarity with the rationale behind political equality, as when Hopkins sarcastically remarked that, if Summers were right, Harvard should amend its admissions policy, presumably to accept fewer women. This is a classic confusion between the factual claim that men and women are not indistinguishable and the moral claim that we ought to judge people by their individual merits rather than the statistics of their group."

The rest of the article makes many more good points.

Eric Lonergan

Another article that also gives an opposing viewpoint is at Don't Worry Your Pretty Little Head.

An important quote I think,
"You'd expect some of these differences to show up in the brain, and they do. A study of mice published a year ago in Molecular Brain Research found that just 10 days after conception, at least 50 genes were more active in the developing brain of one sex than in the other. Comparing the findings to research on humans, the Los Angeles Times observed that "the corpus callosum, which carries communications between the two brain hemispheres, is generally larger in women's brains [than in men's]. Female brains also tend to be more symmetrical. … Men and women, on average, also possess documented differences in certain thinking tasks and in behaviors such as aggression."

Let's be clear about what this isn't. It isn't a claim about overall intelligence. Nor is it a justification for tolerating discrimination between two people of equal ability or accomplishment. Nor is it a concession that genetic handicaps can't be overcome. Nor is it a statement that girls are inferior at math and science: It doesn't dictate the limits of any individual, and it doesn't entail that men are on average better than women at math or science. It's a claim that the distribution of male scores is more spread out than the distribution of female scores—a greater percentage at both the bottom and the top. Nobody bats an eye at the overrepresentation of men in prison. But suggest that the excess might go both ways, and you're a pig."

Both the articles relate to the question about how politics should influence science. Neither of these authors insist that we shouldn't scrutinize science that shows that gender differences exist, but they agree that we should be open to the idea that innate abilities explain some of the differences. Perhaps scientists should approach these studies in the same way that the courts approach some consitutional cases. We might subject such studies to 'strict scrutiny', ie, a higher standard.

Nature 434, 697 (7 April 2005)

Arrogance imperils plans for change at Harvard
Ben A. Barres

Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University School of Medicine

Sir:
I was disappointed by your recent Editorial ("Why Harvard needs Summers" Nature 434, 1; 2005), published in the aftermath of Harvard president Larry Summers' suggestion that women fail to advance in science because they are innately less able than men. His comments have done incalculable harm, contributing greatly to the hostile environment that causes women to leave science.

Summers' views are opposed by an avalanche of data showing that women are as capable as men in science, but often cannot succeed by merit alone because of prejudice. One study (C. Wennerås and A. Wold, Nature 387, 341−343; 1997) found that women applying for a research grant needed to be 2.5 times more productive than men in order to be considered equally competent; for many more, see Why so Slow? by Virginia Valian (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999). No wonder women are not succeeding! Summers' views amount to blaming the victim.

As Stephen Jay Gould's wonderful book The Mismeasure of Man (Norton, New York, 1996) shows, theories about the supposed innate inferiority of women and minorities invariably derive from social prejudice. Many well-meaning people have these biases and are unaware of them. We all need to be more aware of our social biases, and we all need to speak out and confront sexism and discrimination whenever we encounter them.

For this reason, I have been disappointed by the failure of our, largely male, scientific leadership to speak out about the inaccuracy of Summers' comments. "Qui tacet consentire videtur : he who keeps silent is assumed to consent" — and the silence has been deafening. It is difficult for women scientists: if they speak out, they are viewed as asking for undeserved benefits, whereas if they keep silent, progress cannot be made. That's why I think the MIT professor who brought Summers' comments to public attention, Nancy Hopkins, is a hero.

At this point, Summers' arrogant and unscholarly approach has so deeply antagonized the Harvard faculty that there is little chance he can achieve the positive changes enumerated in your Editorial.

One of the faults of the article is that it is older, before brain imaging became powerful and popular. However, I think that the criticisms the author makes about the theory behind the science of studying sex differences are important.

The article is long, so I will summarize some of the main points. The author tries to point out that sex differences are more salient within groups than between groups, and that between group differences are very small. This leads to a discussion of the social implications of reporting sex differences. Scientists need to exercise caution when reporting their studies. They do not want to claim that one gender is better at certain tasks, because the differences are extremely small and based on the average of the group. They also do not want to claim that the differences are due to genetics because they might be due to environmental differences. (Discussed in 'Social Implications Section')

He also discusses four methodological problems with most research. (1) There is a problem with sampling. At the time the article was written most subjects were medical patients who had suffered strokes, etc. Now most participants are university students. (2) Cognitive abilities are often measured by cognitive tests. Differences in cognitive abilities may be due to differences in motivational factors across genders rather than brain differences. (3) Confounding variables can have a profound effect on the research. Determining why there are differences is different from determining that differences exist. Social factors may have an influence on brain sizes, lateralization, etc. across genders. That is, something other than gender might explain the differences. (4) Statistical analysis might show that the research is statistically significant but the difference might not be actually significant outside of the laboratory.

Those four factors tie into the earlier problems with social implications of the research. The rest of the article talks about problems with actual studies. Anyway, I think the author raises some good points for discussion.