Wednesday, March 15, 2017

A Gendered Approach to Science II















Anonymous said...

There is nothing that a reformer hates more than the scientist who's "too obsessed" with science and has been for some time.

Jonathan said...

Thomas said...

Thanks, Jonathan. Maybe satire is the only way through this.

Jonathan said...

I don't think men and women reason differently and differ in their reasons for going into science.

I think that people reason differently and differ in their reason for going into science. One of the differential factors in their various differences might be gender, but wouldn't that be an empirical question? We cannot think that all male astronomers are dedicated to the cause from an early age, and that all females happen into the major later on. That's a sample size of one for each gender.

Thomas said...

I agree Jonathan. It's another way of putting the point. Since people are so different as individuals, I don't understand where the idea that these differences should be equally distributed across race and gender comes from. Just the idea is puzzling. The steadfast conviction that we often see on this point is mind-boggling.

And then I just get dizzy when the people who seem to be unshakable in this conviction matter-of-factly say that men pursue science because they think they can make a contribution and women do so because they've been encouraged by someone else.

My point is that probably most successful scientists, whether male or female, were interested in their field from an early age. (The same goes for musicians and athletes for perhaps more obvious reasons.) In fact, feminists often suggest that women are not "encouraged" to do science enough as young girls, or too often discouraged. This is an interesting point here, since if cultivating an interest (and honing a skill) from an early age makes a difference, then this would also explain the lack of women at the top rungs of science.

The solution, of course, is to have a society where individuals can pursue their interests and discover their talents regardless of race and gender. There can be legitimate disagreements about the degree to which this has been achieved. But I don't think it's wise to correct for the "unfair advantage" that Gaensler's fifteen-year "head start" would give him over someone like Ballard by the time they get to college. At that point, you don't want to "check privilege"; you want to leverage talent. Or we get the nutty world Vonnegut describes.

Jonathan said...

Excellence in a lot of endeavors comes from micro pockets of culture. People from musical families have a much better chance of being great musicians, because it might take more than one generation for something like that to develop. Race car drivers probably have to come from families where that is something accessible and imaginable. Uneven distribution of this kind of thing is probably a good thing in many cases. We shouldn't have to start again with every generation to create a culture within a family or small community. On the other hand there are things for which we really want to approach a state of more equal opportunity: not in the micros cultures of athleticism or music, but in broader fields like medicine. It is an advantage to have a physician as parent, but it should be open to many others as well.

Thomas said...

I guess it's all about what we mean by "should be open". In principle, first violin of a given orchestra is open to anyone who auditions, as is quarterback for the Rams. A spot even in a middling med school is really no different. If you want be a doctor you just have to go to the best school that will take you (and you can afford).

If you don't have the requisite knowledge, then you have to find a place that will teach you what you need.

I think I'm just basically against affirmative action. Even where an injustice is the cause of a lost opportunity to develop a talent, there is no justice in giving more advanced opportunities to develop further to people who aren't the best qualified applicant.