Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 10:31 am
Quote:
I'm not sure I follow you, Fox. You're saying that if there are no differences in ability then there can be no differences in perspective (which I don't really agree with) but then you say that you do believe there are differences in ability, but you're not sure if that extrapolates into a unique perspective? I'm just curious what you're thinking of when you say unique perspective.

We all have differing abilities AND differing perspectives. Certainly myself and my 6 foot tall brother are both equally capable of washing our hands, but we probably have differing perspectives on how high a bathroom sink should be.


My point FD may not be much different than yours. I have my own 'unique perspective' based on my environment, experience, genetics, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, and (I believe) on my God given gifts (intelligence, talents, abilities, etc.) I am one of a kind. You are one of a kind. Everybody is one of a kind even when we are very similar.

So who is suited to give the 'feminine perspective' here? The woman who chooses to be a June Cleaverish full time wife and mom or the clerk at Wal-mart or the CEO of a major corporation? The black woman in a Harlem ghetto or the Navajo jewelry maker selling her wares on the plaza in Santa Fe or the Japanese proprietor of a fine restaurant or the Hindu wife, garbed in colorful sari, assisting her husband in running their hotel? My life experience has no doubt been very different from theirs or yours, yours very different from the next person.

A feminine perspective I think is a myth, just as a 'black perspective' etc. is a myth for all the same reasons.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 10:42 am
That could very well be. But can you not see a case for diversity based on your very point? If only female lawyers represented women, that would not be very diverse and I'm sure you can see why that would not be desirable. Similarly, if only white men represent the entire USA, that's not diverse and we would be lacking many perspectives.

I think there's still a case to be made for diversity. Maybe not forced diversity, but at least an awareness of the deficiencies inherent with a lack thereof.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 11:04 am
The real issue is whether Summers can do a good job as university president, and not that he said something dumb. I've hired many people during my working days, and it matters squat what they think outside their ability to do their jobs well. I'll also admit, that most of the people I hired didn't say strange things - and our relationship was of associates at work.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 11:14 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25575-2005Mar10.html



Three and one half years ago, on an unseasonably warm October afternoon, Harvard University swore in its 27th president, Lawrence Henry Summers, 46 years old, previously secretary of the Treasury in the last months of Bill Clinton's presidency, an economist by training and temperament, a Jew in the highest office at Harvard, which not so many years before had restricted its Jewish enrollment to a measly quota. He had been chosen by the members of the elite, secretive Harvard Corporation, Richard Bradley writes, after a long search:

"Rebuilding undergraduate education, pumping up the sciences, developing [a new campus across the Charles River at] Allston, and globalizing the university -- those were the official tasks for Harvard's twenty-seventh president. Perhaps equally telling were the subjects that the Corporation did not consider priorities -- the effect of the university's great wealth on its self-image, its mission, and its integrity. The fellows of the Corporation were not particularly interested in that wealth's potentially adverse and unintended consequences; most of them were more interested in accruing money than in critiquing it. Instead of considering a president who might present a moral or philosophical counterweight to the economic trends of the 1990s, the search committee wanted someone who could exploit them. That, however, was something they would not say in public."

That the committee got exactly what it was looking for in Larry Summers is by now common knowledge in the community of higher education and among those on the outside who keep watch on it. Whether it got what was best for Harvard is another matter altogether..
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 11:54 am
panzade, Good post. I also heard many years ago about the childishness of university professors in our competitive environment - and that included UC Berkeley.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 12:47 pm
brilliant men have brilliant quirks
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 05:14 pm
Well I don't know Lawrence Summers well enough to have an opinion on his morality. I have not seen the thesis of his speeches to be immoral or unphilosophical. All I have seen him do is make honest observations and pose a question based on them; however both are too often politically incorrect and therefore unforgivable in today's academic client.

I am all for diversity so long as it is a result of excellence. I think in the best interest of the university, the best interest of the students, and in the best interest of the country, the number one criteria for any professor should be his/her competence in his subject, standards to be established by the unviersity, and his/her ability to teach it in a comprehensive and effective manner. The measure of success should be that at the end of the course, the students demonstrate that they have increased their education in measurable ways.

So long as that is the number one criterea in recruiting faculty, I think any diversity that occurs is great. I do not think the person's life experience or 'perspective' should be any factor at all other than incidentally and that professor's should not be teaching personal perspective.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 05:18 pm
While E may stand for excellence in some books, I think it means you're outta gas.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 10:29 am
Don't crush that dwarf Dys...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 10:33 am
dys is "uncrushable." Actually, dys is a giant cowboy.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 07:00 pm
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html

Quote:
THE SCIENCE OF GENDER AND SCIENCE

PINKER VS. SPELKE

A DEBATE

...on the research on mind, brain, and behavior that may be relevant to gender disparities in the sciences, including the studies of bias, discrimination and innate and acquired difference between the sexes.

Harvard University • Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative
Quote:


The Mind Brain and Behavior Inter-Faculty Initiative (MBB), under the leadership of Co-Directors Marc D. Hauser and Elizabeth Spelke, is a university-wide community that studies the structure, function, evolution, development, and pathology of the nervous system, in relation to decision-making and behavior.

Introduction

On April 22, 2005, Harvard University's Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative (MBB) held a defining debate on the public discussion that began on January 16th with the public comments by Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard, on sex differences between men and women and how they may relate to the careers of women in science. The debate at MBB, "The Gender of Gender and Science" was "on the research on mind, brain, and behavior that may be relevant to gender disparities in the sciences, including the studies of bias, discrimination and innate and acquired difference between the sexes".

It's interesting to note that since the controversy surrounding Summers' remarks began, there has been an astonishing absence of discussion of the relevant science...you won't find it in the hundreds and hundreds of articles in major newspapers; nor will find it in the Harvard faculty meetings where the president of the leading University in America was indicted for presenting controversial ideas.

Scientists debate continually, and reality is the check. They may have egos as large as those possessed by the iconic figures of the academic humanities, but they handle their hubris in a very different way. They can be moved by arguments, because they work in an empirical world of facts, a world based on reality. There are no fixed, unalterable positions. They are both the creators and the critics of their shared enterprise. Ideas come from them and they also criticize one another's ideas.

Through the process of creativity and criticism and debates, they decide which ideas get weeded out and which become part of the consensus that leads to the next level of discovery.

But unlike just about anything else said about Summers' remarks, the debate, "The Science of Gender and Science", between Harvard psychology professors Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke, focused on the relevant scientific literature. It was both interesting on facts but differing in interpretation.

Both presented scientific evidence with the realization and understanding that there was nothing obvious about how the data was to be interpreted. Their sharp scientific debate informed rather than detracted. And it showed how a leading University can still fulfill its role of providing a forum for free and open discussion on controversial subjects in a fair-minded way. It also had the added benefit that the participants knew what they were talking about.

Who won the debate? Make up your own mind. Watch the video, listen to the audio, read the text and check out the slide presentations.

There's a lesson here: let's get it right and when we do we will adjust our attitudes. That's what science can do, and that's what Edge offers by presenting Pinker vs. Spelke to a wide public audience.
Quote:


there's a lot to read and listen to at the site
worthwhile if you're in an open frame

if you're comfy in your box, don't bother following the link

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 07:01 pm
i guess i really do want people to follow that link Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 07:53 pm
Prolly sumpin' some darned ol' girl wrote . . .
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 10:11 pm
Setanta wrote:
Prolly sumpin' some darned ol' girl wrote . . .


But then again it might be sumpin" some androgynous Pekingnese might write.

Oh, how difficult it is to refrain from the excesses of being a clown.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 10:36 pm
I love clowns. Wink
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/17/2014 at 01:33:13