4 thoughts on “Gender and Talking Philosophy

  1. Ugh! The first essay is great, I thought, but the comments are not. S.Wallerstein, who is a very frequent commenter here, tries, but the audience is unsympathetic.

    The second essay seems built on the premise that it is the adversarial method that turns women off.

  2. I’m guarded in my wording above, since in the past I have found people on the other blog (whichever it is) can be incensed and want to argued over here. So I’m be especially careful with our policy of being nice, except for the”ugh.” It reminds me of Jender’s decision not to take comments on the What is it like blog. Even I, just a reader, felt the comments were invalidating.

  3. I’m going to comment here because I’ve lurked here for a long time and have never been to the other blog.

    Every time I read comments supporting Summers, I look to see if any of them will acknowledge that the statement that there are more men at the highest end of the IQ scale (hereafter MHIQ) is by itself evidence of nothing more than the factual information it contains. It never happens. Instead it seems that we are to accept without any citations their underlying assumptions, which seem to include all or some of the following:

    1. A few more points at the higher end of the IQ scale provides statistically significant advantages in academic and professional achievement.
    2. MHIQ are more likely to go into the sciences.
    3. All or most male scientists are MHIQ.
    4. All or most of the highest achieving male scientists are MHIQ.
    5. All or most male science faculty at tier one research universities are from MHIQ.
    6. Plotting the IQs of male and female scientists will show that there are more MHIQ than FHIQ.

Comments are closed.