Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!decwrl!chabot@amber.DEC From: chabot@amber.DEC (Lisa Chabot) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: sexual differences, environment Message-ID: <158@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-May-84 12:15:23 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.158 Posted: Tue May 15 12:15:23 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 16-May-84 04:34:40 EDT Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 122 The following exercise is a rewriting of a letter by William Hughes with sex substituted for race; it is an exercise and it does not represent my opinions (or of Mr. Hughes' about race, either). -------------------------------------------------------------- Why is it that it is taken for granted that all observed racial differences other than the gross physical ones are assumed to be due entirely to social conditioning. The evidence is by no means clear on this subject. If a scientist were to do a study which tended to show there were structural differences among the races which helped to explain the domination of Caucasians in math and physics, this scientist would be immediately branded sexist. No matter if his [sic --lsc] research methods were impeccable. No matter if he judges his collegues and students soley on the basis of their work. He has come up with a conclusion which is philisophically wrong and thus cannot be valid. I am certian that there will be those who will attack me for saying whites are inherently better at math than blacks. I have said no such thing nor do I hold this opinion. There is simply insufficient evidence to do so. However, I do not hold the opinion that the observed differences are due to "*training*". There is insufficient evidence to support this conclusion. A friend of mine (Tracy Tims sometime contributer to this forum) agrees, but says that if (repeat if! (emphasis mine)) such differences exist it would be a bad idea to prove this as society is unlikely to react to such information in a mature manner. I do not agree. The knowledge would in fact be dangerous knowledge, but dangerous knowledge should be faced not ignored. With regard to people equality does not imply identity. There are observed differnces between the races. Let us study these differences with open minds. ----------------------------------------------------------------- End of paraphrasing. These days you have a hard time getting away with publicly arguing that racial influence on technical ability should be investigated. Why in the world would any knowledge of differences in ability between the sexes be dangerous knowledge? I don't see any sort of societal upheaval or reaffirmation of any status quo in store. If it's determined that women are better space shuttle pilots because of their better small motor reactions (it's selective breeding--all those generations of needlework :-) ), then are men really not going to be space shuttle pilots? If we decide that there have been more known male mathematical geniuses, then are we going to say little girls can't study calculus? I think there may very well be differences, but they are so insignificant as to be not worth spending the time on. In my own direct experience, in my observations, environment has been an overwhelming factor, both in issues of difference between the sexes and differences among races. Let me quote again: > No matter if his research methods were impeccable. A big problem here is deciding how impeccable are research methods: what sort of standards do we apply? Count brain-cells with "math" printed on them? IQ tests? we've read enough about the social-class influence on IQ tests. We can't expect to take a human mind as a clean slate, write some math on it and see how well it sticks. Dave Martindale asks about the relevance of the topic of his letter to this newsgroup, but his first paragraph struck me as being wonderfully appropriate right here, right after Mr. Hughes's letter: > ...Take a person and put them in an environment where they are treated as > low-class nobodies, and they will probably behave as expected. Put the same > person in an environment where they are challenged to do the best they can, > and rewarded for doing so, and you may find a very capable person. So let's take a classroom of bright young minds and teach them geometry. The bell rings, school ends, and all those bright young minds go home. Now what happens to those slates? *** I'm sorry, I just can't talk rationally about this *** hang on a minute *** My heart is breaking, again. In memory. For my old gang. Half of us were bright, we had the ability. We all had educated parents (even most of the mothers went to college and some of them worked (teachers, nurses)), middle class family incomes (except mine, it was lower). But how come their brothers went to good colleges and they went to the junior colleges--my friends were good like their brothers. What is it like to grow up in a large family which everybody knows but doesn't really say out loud is so big because they kept having kids until they got a boy--what are the daughters supposed to think of themselves: as chaff? as mistakes? No, darling, of course we love you, but we love your brother more. What is it like to come home knowing that your parents care that you stay out of trouble in school but they don't encourage YOU to excel, they don't expect YOU to excel except maybe in HomeEc. I apologize, you can't be held to understand my emotional outburst. I loved my friends, and their parents told them they were second-rate in so many oh-so-subtle ways, and some told them they were nobodies. It was a fine, clear, ringing, unexpected pleasure to be able to silence one mother who NEVER mentioned her daughter, who ALWAYS talked about her sons' college prospects, when I was able to make her choke by my casual outdistancing of her asinine best son (he was, too, poor guy, raised on such a diet of flattery that his mother fed him, he probably didn't have a chance to be mature. but I don't feel too bad for him because he was fed (flattery). and he's still alive); but it was an empty pleasure too, because I could never change her heart about her daughter. Next morning, bell rings, class begins again, which kids have done their homework. Which kids have been raised to have the confidence in themselves to know their own work is worthwhile. What's wrong with that kid who acts as though the assignments aren't always worth completing, talks and smiles in class, with that surprising vein of bitterness that occasionally shows when you try to emphasize the importance of applying yourself in school to its tasks; what's wrong with this kid is that this kid has been beaten down and accepted that what this kid does in geometry has no relevance to this kid's adult life: this kid is going to be a homemaker, this kid is going steal cars. Geometry isn't relevant to ring-around-the-collar, geometry isn't relevant to getting out of a knife fight. How in the world can we isolate the human from the environment? ******************************************************************* Most little girls play with dolls, little boys build things. My parents probably made a bizarre mistake when they gave us Tonka trucks. L S Chabot UUCP: ...{ decvax | allegra | ucbvax }!decwrl!rhea!amber!chabot ARPA: ...decwrl!rhea!amber!chabot@{ Berkeley | SU-Shasta } USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlboro, MA 01752 shadow: ...{ decvax | allegra | ucbvax }!decwrl!rhea!avalon!chabot