George wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:1108064013.696192.42320{at}o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > George  wrote:
> >
> >> wrote
> >
> >>> George   wrote:
> >
> >>>>  wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>>>> George  wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>>That's because boys are innately agressive.
> >
> >
> >>> You freely claim that boys may tend to be innately aggressive.
Yet
> > you
> >>> refuse  to entertain the possibility that boys may tend to be
> > innately
> >>> inclined towards engineering and science. What if aggressiveness
> > itself
> >>> is a useful trait to have if you are a driven scientist?
> >
> >
> >
> >>Yes, I freely claim that boys tend to be more agressive than girls.
> > But don't
> >>take my word for it.  Try looking at the research that
substantiates
> > that claim.
> >>The kind of agressiveness that is seen in boys is not a
prerequisite
> > for being
> >> a "driven" scientist, unless you really think that women like
Madam
> > Curie
> >> Sally Ride spent their childhood being the schoolyard bullies!
> >
> > First of all, for all we know both Madam Curie and Sally Ride may
have
> > been tomboys and may have had a boys' level of aggressiveness.
>
> First of all, my wife graduated cum laud with degrees in mathematics
and
> geology, and she is NO tom boy.  Frankly, that you believe that one
has to be
> agressive in order to do analytical geometry and calculus, or learn
how to
> maneuver a space shuttle seems a bit elitist to me.

   Whatever, but no one will ever draft someone for the really cool
jobs. The only way to get to be a top scientist or astronaut is to be
personally at
 home with competition and aggressive behavior.
    It is probably actually dangerous to over-encourage anyone to go
into certain fields. If they find themselves farther along than they
really want to go, you can see meltdown/ dysfunctional behaviour.
    I am thinking of the disasters which occurred in guided climbs of
80000plus meter mountain, esp Everest. A lot of guide support has often
gotten half committed climbers up into the death-zone above 24,000
feet. It is called the death zone because lots of weatherchanges or
random accidents can easily create problems for which there is no
adequate recovery available and so people die.
     MORE latere



>
> > Second, you do not understand the concept of statistics and the
term
> > "on average".  Just because the 2 women - Maria Sklodowska-Curie
and
> > Sally Ride - out of 3 billion women on Earth succeeded in men's
> > professions, this doesn't mean that the total number of women
> > biologically capable and inclined to do science and space travel is
> > equal to that of men.
>
> It also doesn't mean that they aren't biologically capable.  What is
known is
> that girls are not encouraged at an early age to persue the physical
sciences.
> In fact they are discouraged socially in many ways.  And that
discouragement
> doesn't just come from men.  It comes from female teachers and their
peers as
> well.  If a girl becomes interested in rocketry, she is seen, to use
your word,
> as a "tom girl".  The fact even you view these professions
as "men's
> professions" demonstrates quite clearly the glass ceiling I am
talking about.
>
> > BTW, I can give you examples of dozens of more
> > great female scientists. So what? As they say, exceptions just
prove
> > the rule.
>
> They are exceptions because A) many of them were encouraged to persue
these
> professions (Madam Curie was a 19th century elitist, and in those
days, women of
> the elite were encouraged to get a good education), and B) many
others, like my
> good friend at the EPA simply decided that she wasn't going to let
the boys
> clubn mentality prevent her from persuing her dreams.  But these are
rare
> instances not because they were biological freaks of nature, but
because they
> either had different social pressures on them, or they simply had
more drive to
> accomplish their goals.
>
> You know, if it was a biological thing, a lot more men would be in
these fields
> than there are today.  The fact is that most people, including men,
wash out
> early.  It's not like there is this huge rush of people (men or
women) who are
> eager to become physicists and mathematicians.  In point of fact, my
> understanding is that there are very few Americans of either gender
pesuring
> careers in math, physics, engineering, and to a lesser degree,
chemistry.  When
> I was a geology student, I was riding with a post-graduate on an
elevator from
> the geology department in the third floor to the geology labs in the
basement of
> my school's science building.  This gentleman was a Pakistani
geologist who was
> doing post-doctorate work in the department.  When we reached the
basement and
> the elevator opened, we both noticed that we were across the hall
from the
> physics department.  What immediately struck both of us was that the
department
> was nearly all chinese.  There was not a single American there.  We
looked at
> each other, and he smiled, shrugged his shoulders and said to me
"where are all
> of the Americans"?

     Stop and ask yourself, Are American women experiencing morr
resistance going into science than The vPati dude or all of those guys
frommchinsa
  I smiled back and said, "they are all over in the business
> school getting M.A.s in business.
>
> >> And boys are not
> >>innately inclined to become engineers and scientists.  If that were
> > the case,
> >> there would be far more men in these fields than there are.  The
fact
> > is that
> >> the vast majority of both men and women don't go into these
fields.
> >
> >
> > Now that's just the most stupid statement I have seen in many
months. I
> > am at this point inclined to stop arguing with you becuase I think
you
> > have the intelligrence of  a bot.
> >
> > First of all, how the hell can "far more men" go into science and
> > astronautics? The society doesn't need any more.
>
> It doesn't?  That's odd, because I seem to recall at least two
articles recently
> where the department of education was complaining that science and
math
> education was suffering a dearth of students.  In fact, according to
the House
> committee on Science:
>
> http://www.house.gov/science/backup/106thpress/106-151.htm
>
> "Currently, over half of science and engineering graduate students at
U.S.
> universities are foreign-born.  This apparent lack of interest or
preparation of
> many U.S. students for careers in science or engineering will limit
the
> innovation that propels economic growth and prosperity here in the
U.S."
>
> You're suggestion that society doesn't need any more simply
reiterates my belief
> that your misguided assumptions and elitist views are part of the
problem with
> our education system today.
>
> > There is no taxpayer
> > money to spend on far more scientists and atronauts. In fact, there
> > thousands mor emen and women applying to astronaut positions than
the
> > number of the few that NSA selects. And graduate schools also
reject
> > many men who want to become scientists.
>
> You're missing the point.  Read above.  Oh, and when I said that "And
boys are
> not innately inclined to become engineers and scientists.  If that
were the
> case, there would be far more men in these fields than there are",
why did you
> immediately assume that I was referring to astronauts?  Do you assume
that all
> engineering students and other science majors automatically have a
desire to
> work for NASA or want to become astronauts?  Are there not other
positions that
> engineers and scientists can work in besides astronautics?
>
> > Second, men are not also inclined towards sciences. They are also
> > inclined towards construction work, law, medicine, taxi driving,
> > assemply line work, etc etc. So, why would all of them go into
science
> > and not into taxi driving?
>
> Apparently, you have never been a taxi driver, or known one.  How
many taxi
> drivers do you know who aspire to be taxi drivers?  Not many, I
gather.
>
> >
> >> But of those who do, the majority are men.  And my belief is that
> > this is so
> >> by and large because of social pressures both at home and in the
> >> classroom, not because of some innate ability of men to do the
work.
> >
> > To this, let me reply with you own words: Try looking at the
research
> > that substantiates that claim.
>
> I have.  It does (substantiate the claim of social pressures).  I've
also posted
> links to papers (especially a very recent study) that show that
although there
> are structural difference in the brains of men and women (men have
more gray
> matter while women have more white matter), those difference overall
cannot
> account for the statistics that show more men in science and math
than women.
> In fact, the recent study indicated that these structural differences
by and
> large don't affect whether a man is more innately prepared for
science and math
> than a womown.  I've even posted links to those studies in this
newsgroup, and
> in others.  If you are interested, you can try searching for them in
the
> newsgroups, or search the web yourself.  I'm not inclined to
repeatedly post
> them.  Once is all that is necessary, and all I have time for.  But I
will be
> nice enough give you one that I have handy so that you can start your
search:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=448153&page=1



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/11/05 6:44:15 AM ---