Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site astrovax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!ihnp4!astrovax!mario From: mario@astrovax.UUCP (Mario Vietri) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: sexual differences, environment Message-ID: <347@astrovax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 18-May-84 13:26:17 EDT Article-I.D.: astrovax.347 Posted: Fri May 18 13:26:17 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 19-May-84 01:39:47 EDT References: <158@decwrl.UUCP>, <342@astrovax.UUCP> <7786@watmath.UUCP> Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics Lines: 102 Brief summary : William Hughes considered the possibility that the large male numerical supremacy in the mathematical sciences might be due to intrinsic (i.e. genetic) differences between men and women. Lisa Chabot countered the argument by stating that social differences are far more important than genetic ones in determinig the fate of talented young children. I added that the question of how natural (i.e. genetic) is gender superiority,cannot be answered within the bounds of modern science; thus posing it is useful only in discriminating against women. I add here a few comments: 1) The reason why this question cannot be answered by modern science is that there is no way to quantify what is meant by talent for .... Also, it is not immediately possible to disentangle social and intrinsic factors . There is one simple parallel which can be drawn : how do the IQ tests depend on race ? This debate is well known and much publicized : it is carefully reviewed in the book 'The mismeasure of man' by J. Gould . In any case, one might ask himself : if this question can be answered, what is the evidence in any case, as of now? Now let me ask : where is the evidence ? Who is investigating this question ? How come psychologists apply themselves to such abstract categories as Intelligence, Perception of Space, Orientation, and so on ? Why not dwelve into something so much more promising as the question suggested by W.H.? In a follow up article,W.H. suggested that it might be that such differences are due to hormonal differences between men and women : well, if you were a psychologist, and you suspected something like this, and thought it could be proved, would you not jump at the opportunity and study this phenomenon? Imagine : for the first time ever , a direct link is established between one of man's superior intellective properties (mathematical, logical ability) and one of his biochemical components ! It's never been done before ! Why not now ? May I suggest that this is so because there is no way to do it ? Because no psychologist in the world thinks it can be done ? And , notice, the situation is not going to improve in the future: in fact , children have been raised in very many different ways for centuries, and they presumably will be for all the foreseeable future. So the disentangling one needs to do is the same , no matter what extraordinary developments you expect of future psychology and neuropsychology. There might be just one way out, one might think: that neuroscience identifies the exact site responsible for the different abilities of man's abstract thought. You might be tempted to suggest a more modern version of this, where an enzyme takes the place of a specific place, or maybe a protein or what not: but, look, this is exactly what the scientists of the Middle Ages believed, a long abondoned presumption . So what is one left with ? 2) Now let me raise another question: why was math singled out ? There are many fields where prominent women are far less numerous than men : politics, philosophy, history, etc. etc. . There are fewer anchorwomen than anchormen, or fewer corporation chairwomen than chairmen . So why single out mathematics ? I may offer two suggestions: i) mathematical talent seems to be more amenable to quantitative verification : a few simple problems can discern the talented from the untalented. The ability to solve problems seems to be valued more than any other single faculty in these tests. I will not argue to show how this is not independent of social conditioning : Lisa Chabot has done that already, so much better than I could. But I will add another thought: there are talents that are necessary in order to be a successful mathematician : how about the ability to choose a problem? von Neumann worked outside the main stream of mathematics during most of his life , and he THUS managed to invent a large number of subfields. And, even if you work within the mainstream of your field , you must be able to choose the problem that now, with your talents and technical resources,can be solved. Which test measures this? And which test measures your ability to interact with your colleagues, which plays such an important role in persuading them that you do have solved a problem,and that such a problem is important? There seems to be a strange fascination,in reactionaries of all kinds, with the quantitative aspects of one's intelligence, something to be weighted, heavy, massive,tangible: something one may hold in his hands , show to his inferior , and say : look,you fool, can't you see how much better than you I am ? Maybe I might suggest for reading at this point a funny, but not superficial at all, short essay by Roland Barthes: 'Einstein's brain' in 'Mythologies'. He makes exactly this point. 2) There are a large number of myths which the western civilization relinquished : racial superiority,technical superiority,scientific superiority, intellectual superiority in general. (Such a judgement is always abstracted from time : it does not matter that , at different times, the Indians,the Chinese,or the Egyptians,Babylonians, or in more recent times the Arabs were far ahead of us in all the above-mentioned categories. The only thing that matters is that now the West is better, and this concept is analytically continued to infinity). Some of these myths had to be abandoned : rights had to be shared , independence had to be granted, technical ability had to be recognized . But abstract thought has always been the property of white, rich males, in Florence as in Paris, in London as in New York . It seems to be the most closely guarded property of mankind. I believe it is time we share it. Brief Summary : I simply clarify some points of my previous letter. Mario Vietri Princeton University Observatory {allegra,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton}!astrovax!mario