Well, in as many words

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/scienc...ss&emc=rss

The actual content of the article falls under the "Water Is Wet: Who Knew?" category.

The fact that the NY Times would publish it is somewhat notable, insofar as the NYTimes and other like-minded media-outlets usually treat the "Impartiality" of "Scientists" as a Law of Nature, never to be denied or called into question.

I would think that if a larger variance in IQ was the explanation for a preponderance of men in higher levels of math and science, then that same preponderance would apply to other areas as well. Unless IQ only measures math and science aptitude. I agree that the question is valid and should not have been controversial. To me, it's a valid hypothesis for science to look into.

On a side note, I've noticed others that use "i.e." when they mean "e.g." and vice versa. I doubt that was intentional.

(02-08-2011 02:42 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The actual content of the article falls under the "Water Is Wet: Who Knew?" category.

The fact that the NY Times would publish it is somewhat notable, insofar as the NYTimes and other like-minded media-outlets usually treat the "Impartiality" of "Scientists" as a Law of Nature, never to be denied or called into question.

Finally someone pointed out the 800 gorilla in the room - it probably killed his career. Good article, though.

(02-08-2011 07:40 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Finally someone pointed out the 800 gorilla in the room - it probably killed his career.

For his sake, I hope he has tenure. Cause if he doesn't have it already, he damn sure won't get it now.

Bias is bad. Unless it is our bias. Also, we should look at all possible explanations for a phenomenon. Unless the conclusions might be uncomfortable for us or otherwise ideologically impure.

I however love all of you, warts and all.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/114718/

WOW! This is not just a bump. Read this for quite an eye-opener.

CRH, I think you'll appreciate it. And that's not meant to be a jab in any way. You're largely as tolerant as you ask the rest of us to be.

(responding to the link in #7)

In four years at Tulane (undergraduate) and three years at Georgia State (law school) I can remember a grand total of exactly four (4) professors who ever uttered a non-"liberal" political opinion.

I think that "liberals"/"progressives" have always been over-represented in the academic world -- certainly within the secular-academic world of the last century or so -- but the story of how they achieved such absolute, near-100% domination within that community is one that I think hasn't been effectively told. Of course, I suppose many of the people who are most familiar with it Don't Want it to be told, because that would just serve to remind people of how different (not to mention: strange, perverse, and hostile) that field is from the rest of society.

For quite a long while, even after almost all the other non-military, non-religious college/university faculties had gone "liberal" in the 1930s/1940s, most faculties in the South remained majority-conservative, or at least tolerant of conservatives. But even that limited dispensation generally faded out from the late 70s to the early 90s. Nowadays, spotting an openly conservative professor at pretty much any campus (exceptions for the military academies and *some* explicitly religious institutions) is akin to catching lightning in a bottle.