(All this apart from the obvious fact that his “dangerous statement” is a truism; just consider the logically opposite statement that “Groups of people never differ genetically in their average talents and temperament”, and you’ll see a true Woody Allen rendering of a “great truth”, and how senseless Pinker’s posturing really is.)

But Roger Schank’s and Haim Harari’s contributions to Edge’s question are excellent (and truly disturbing).

I don’t think that your exercise is so terribly important because it is clear that most of the talented ones did the contest, some of them may have failed, but you will certainly not prove that most of the NAS members did not even try to participate. This is what you would need to reduce the pool by a factor of two, and even such a heroic act would only change the prediction for the representation of women by a very small amount.

The 1947 Putnam Fellows were
Clarence Wilson Hewlett, Jr, Harvard University
Maxwell Rosenlicht, Columbia University
W. Forrest Stinespring, Harvard University
William Turanski, University of Pennsylvania
Eoin L. Whitney, University of Alberta

As I wrote (but you probably didn’t bother to read through, a look through the top 100 each year is what is needed).

-Arun

Don’t know whether you think this represents my viewpoint, but in case what I wrote above isn’t clear enough, I don’t hold that view at all (and doubt that you do either). I agree that African-Americans are much less represented than women in the sciences and engineering, certainly in my experience. I can also think of some environmental reasons that seem fully capable of explaining the poor participation without any need at all for invoking genetic arguments.

Of course I don’t hold this view and I assumed that neither did you. What I was trying to do (in an admittedly more aggressive way than was probably useful) was to point out that people who are willing to consider genetics as a possible explanation for male/female representation in science (and can then outline a “plausible” reason why — your nurturing example) are much more reluctant to do the same for other underrepresented groups. (When it is equally illogical to do it for either)
Your last sentence:

I can also think of some environmental reasons that seem fully capable of explaining the poor participation without any need at all for invoking genetic arguments.
sums it up very well for both cases. (The evidence for this can be found in the many studies that I listed in an earlier post above. ) This is exactly the point I and others have been trying to make (with the support for the environmental reasons found in the references and studies).

My frustration here, which I really do not mean to direct at you, is that the data point clearly to strong environmental factors that are still very much in play for both women and minorities. When you outline why you think that women might be genetically less interested, you are reinforcing strongly held cultural beliefs that only serve to underscore them. My point is that you recognize the dangers (and offensiveness) of doing so for another underrepresented group. Yet are willing to do so for women in science without any more data to support this than for racial differences.

Yes men and women are different in some ways — they respond differently to some medical treatment, for example. There are also various race specific genetic disorders and response to medical treatment. Different upper body strength, different skin color, different facial structures. No correlation between any of these and scientific ability/interest has ever been shown. Some differences in brain activity have been claimed– again no correlation between these and scientific ability/interest. History is replete with attempts to correlate brain size, physiognomy, skin color, presence of a uterus, with various limitations on mental ability/interest. In most cases it was a thinly veiled attempt to somehow “scientifically” justify continued discrimination against a particular group, and so far none of the “results” are still standing.

As recently as 100 years ago members of groups currently underrepresented in physics were directly forbid access to the ranks of physics, and were openly discouraged from entering the field well into the 1960s. To continue to use their underrepresentation as evidence that they are innately less interested or qualified is not sensible. To use studies that find small differences that have no demonstrated correlation with the prerequisites for the field is also not sensible.

Am I denying the possibility that there may be some innate differences between various groups in science ability/interest? No. But neither do I deny the possibilty that one of the events in a WIMP detectors was due to a WIMP, not a cosmic ray (if wimps exist, certainly a low probability possibility). However, I do deny that we yet have any evidence of such an event. (Let’s leave DAMA out of this for the sake of the argument). The cosmic ray background is very real, well- documented, and at this point clearly dominates over any wimp signal. We can and should argue over the details of this background — maybe a new Monte Carlo analysis will show that it’s somewhat stronger or weaker than I’m currently assuming. But by this time it’s well enough documented that I can’t claim that there are no CRs, or that they don’t really affect my data.

The bottom line is that any such innate differences, if they exist, are not useful in trying to understand the numbers of women in physics at the moment.

Here is where my beliefs come in — I belive that physics is an incredibly rewarding endeavor, as the writers of this blog have made clear, and I believe in distributing opportunities to engage in such a profession as fairly as possible. (Nor is it exclusively for non-nurturers — many outstanding physicists I know are also excellent and very nurturing fathers.) Toward that goal, focusing on any possible innate differences before accounting for the documented environmental factors is illogical and, worse, counterproductive. Further, institutions and individuals that have made progress in increasing the numbers have done so by addressing the environmental factors. (read the Blind Auditions ref for an interesting take on this or Georgi’s talk for practical info).

On a different note, our children are obviously older than yours (we have some of each gender) and we also tried hard to minimize stereotypes in favor of encouraging each child to play to their individual strengths and work on their own weaknesses. But it isn’t easy. And it’s both genders that feel pressured to conform to certain behaviours — try reading Valian’s book for more insight on this.

In any case, best of luck with both the kids and the PhD.

Women scientists/engineers turned out out to have a ”brain profile” (I don’t remember exactly what tests they performed here) similar to males, while males who work in occupations in which usually mostly females work, such as nursing etc. had brain profiles more similar to what you see in most women.