Dumb statement. Tell the brilliant, and attractive, Carolyn Porco, head of the Cassini imaging team!!

And by the way, I hate math.

I think you're being too hard on Summers -- his exact comments aren't available, but he acknowledged social factors contributing to the imbalance. He identified biological differences as being one of a number of contributing elements.

The problem isn't how much of a part he thinks biological differences play. The fact that this pseudo-science has made it into debate at all is just amazing. Pretending that there are biological differences that predispose one gender to math or science is a perfect set-up for hiring discrimination and for keeping women out of a whole range of positions. This is still a real problem too, at least with Harvard's hiring practices. It also treats women who excel at math and science unfairly by painting them as exceptional, as though they had some physical barrier to overcome. The utter backwardness of such statments can be seen if you replace "women" with "[race of choice]".

(More good discussion about the topic over at Tom's place, if you're interested.)

i don't know, guys. basic differences between men and women in things like spatial rotation do exist. it's no reason to keep women from being good scientists, to be sure, but i'm not sure it falls into the realm of "psuedoscience." unfortunate to see it used in such a way, however.

in tasks like spatial rotation, that is. now is that because of culturally sanctioned differences in education? i'm not sure; i haven't read deeply enough into the literature to tell you that. but differences in brain structure do exist, however subtle.

(but, as i said above, that's no reason for more women not to be scientists. so. that's that.)

More scientists, more everything. It would be different if there were tons of women lawyers and lit professors or what have you and it just played out that the subtle edge in spatial wahoo meant somewhat greater numbers of men in mathematics. I don't think the numbers reflect that, though.

Are there so many seats for high-concept mathematicians that this sort of selection can sensibly play out? With academic demographic trends being what they are, It seems likely to me there will be enough outlier data (i.e., girls who are astonishingly good at math compared to any peers) out there that the seats could be filled in roughly equal gender proportion with no loss to the integrity of the math departments. I would want to know more about how many women math Ph.D.s there are out there now to evaluate whether they're getting a raw deal as is (they sure say that they do at Harvard). And what about really verbal sciences like conceptual physics? The social artifact stuff sound like good culprits to me, but I sure don't know.

I think we just need to give the crusty old men a few years to die off. Things should resolve themselves (and our pay will drop accordingly.) I'm sure that it's social artificat keeping women out of science; I just got indignant when any brain differences at all were denied. (Sorry.)

I would, as Tom said, like to see the full text of his comments.

Far be it from to pretend to understand the female mind.

Kriston, I agree completely. I really, really doubt that biological differences in ability have much to do with the number of high-level math/science jobs held by women, or even the number of women who decide to pursue training in science. I'm with Amy: I just got riled up by the science-by-fiat that was being used to damn Summers. He probably said something stupid, but it wasn't as obviously stupid as many people assumed.

Especially considering the whole point of the seminar, as I understand it, was to have an off-the-record brainstorming session on a grand scale. The line that everyone seems to be so riled up about was one of many, and it seems rather obvious to me that, instead of demagoguing the man in the press, one of these intelligent women should've just raised her hand and said, "There isn't a sliver of evidence to support that." Boom, case closed, next topic.

To me this seems like a lot of people who already had issues with Summers (and for what sound like valid reasons in Ph.D Bitch's post) being a bit opportunistic in their public lampooning of one lame comment.

Actually, as read in an assessment textbook today, differences in two areas of spatial reasoning (but not in math and verbal abilities) do exist between men and women on a large scale. These differences, however, have been declining steadily since 1960. While researchers aren't sure why, this particular author hypothesized that it's because these old social roles are falling away and girls are being encouraged to think in different ways. It might also have to do with how the person testing the girl expects her to perform and scores her results.

What gets me, Matt, is that what he said (or what he's supposed to have said, rumored to have said) is based on science that's respected by both men and women in the field. Not only to abilities differ by sex (which, as said above, is changing) but parts of the brain (like the hypothalamus) are different sizes depending upon prenatal hormone levels. It's how this guy used this information, or how everyone's said he used it, that's potentially annoying -- and I'm with you: it sounds like a lot of people are blowing it out of proportion to get a point across.

Is that appropriate? Maybe, especially considering how dismally folks are portraying Summers' record of hiring women, giving them tenure, etc.

I think the key is exactly that, Amy—how much context you choose to add to Summers' words. In this sense I think that the transcript may not be all revealing. It seems to me to be pretty telling that a number of women working in the field walked out, one even claiming that she felt like barfing. Maybe they're all whiney leftists. Maybe innocuous comments from someone else's mouth found added furor coming from Summers due to his job and record on the matter (my preferred theory).

If you wouldn't mind spending a semester or so settling this question, Amy, my blog and I would be much obliged.

from the article i read, there were a few women who walked out, and a few women who said they weren't put off by the question and were even surprised by some of the reactions. i just think unless there's a transcript released, it's kind of irresponsible to assign any context or assume that he put more emphasis on the "girls suck at science" line than any other of the myriad reasons he stated. some people were offended; some weren't, and the media seems to have sensationalized a lot of the issue.

actually this spatial reasoning crap is..uh crap.
lots of studies suggest spatial reasoning isn't innate at all but learned, like from playing with legos and stuff. Plenty of studies suggest that when given a simple demonstaration of 3-D rotations, gender differences in spatial reasoning dissapear.
Since spatial reasoning is a complex task, there is not simple men are better becuase of this one factor answer.

Right. As I mentioned above -- the rates in the differences between the sexes have been declining since the sixties, perhaps because of differences in the way males and females are treated, perhaps because of improvements in testing methodology. Regardless of its validity, it's being taught (as recently as a year ago) in psychology courses in top universities as strong theory, if not reality, so it's not surprising the guy would've cited it.

Maybe not that he would cite it as extant research but that he would cite it as a causal factor? It seems to me that the genetic derivation of spatial reasoning has to be a far cry from the most important characteristic of a good math and science student, professor, researcher, etc.

Actually it is hormonal and not genetic. Quantitative and spatial skills vary within a gender according to levels of sex hormones.

Women's Spatial reasoning Links
From the NSF
http://www.cise.nsf.gov/kdi/tools/tutors.html
A study from Berekely
http://best.me.berkeley.edu/~aagogino/fie95/FIE95.4a2.1.agogino.html
According to both of these (and a buttload more I could link) spatial reasoning is a skill that can be learned, not somthing innate. Students, male and female, who are given instruction get better at spatial rotations an sex differences dissappear.

It's going to be tough to disentangle genetic from environmental factors no matter what you're talking about; it's all about the environment in which those traits are expressed, and if that environment is sexist (which is generally is,) you're going to see those differences manifest themselves in the workplace/classroom.

I'm just curious as to whether this guy was quoting this research (however flawed it might be) to say "Women's brains can't handle science" or to say "These are differences cited for women not being in top science positions." I think they're two different statements, aren't they?

I just don't understand it....please keepin mind...MEN and WOMEN are "different" they are like orange and apple for Ex.though both r fruits!
They can't be compared with each other ...there r bound to be similarities but equally... differences as well.
And if these differences favour a certain gender then...its mainly because of the biological factors and not any Fu**ing stereotype or social reasons.
Women r better at verbal/emotional stuff and Men ...science/math.They r built for that.Now don't give me some politically correct bullshit.

Well i am a woman ...fyi.