Message-Id: <l03102800b09053393290@[153.90.236.25]>
In-Reply-To: <199711130455.UAA15586@poseidon.coastside.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 02:32:32 -0700
To: pinhole@exploratorium.edu
From: Steven Eiger <eiger@montana.edu>
Subject: Re: Pinhole Daily Digest
Regarding the following:
>This is an interesting discussion and I have to weigh in because you
>mentioned the genetic aspect and sex. I think that it is very easy to
>become muddled in our thinking in this area. We need to be quite sure about
>what we do and don't know:
> we do know that academic ability is partially genetic
> we don't know how much is genetic or whether that is really knowable
> we certainly don't know if interests are genetic
> we don't know how sex relates to interests and academic ability
>We don't know much!!
I certainly agree with your final statement on not knowing much. Perhaps
even more importantly, we should not pay too much attention to these
points, even if they are valid. I do however,believe that interests are
strongly influenced by genetics. Animals are bred for their positive
behavioral traits. In humans, the studies of twins separated at birth have
been remarkable. Smithsonian magazine many years ago did a pictorial on
this. It was astounding. Twins with essentially the same wardrobe, or
fascinations with rare hobbies, or having unusual round benches around
trees in their yards. I do not believe this can be fully explained by
coincidence. I think those that try so hard to refute the role of genetics
in behavior, including interests, feel that either the brain is a special
domain relative to other physical traits or that humans are fundamentally
different from animals in this regard, or that it is just a plain dangerous
or depressing thing to believe in even if it's true. I especially
sympathize with the last reason. I know of no research to support interest
differences between the sexes. Some has probably been done, but I would
imagine that it would be quite flawed. My guess is that there are
differences based on my own observations of toddlers, I do not buy the
pervasive influence of society affecting all two year olds I have seen. I
am not sure why I am being so long winded on this issue, as it is not a
very important one. In fact, it is potentially dangerous as it tends to
create barriers and expectations, and the lunatic fringe (I live in
Montana) might even be encouraged to bring back eugenics.
I really liked the expression of "freeing the girls". That seems
the most intelligent thing said in all this. Once that is done thoroughly,
then if someone wants to do a study, they can. I would be astounded if
there were no differences present between the sexes. And if there were,
what is the big deal, why should anyone really care? Maybe women will be
relatively more interested in genetics or astronomy. Should men care
about that, of course not. The important thing is that everyone has the
freedom to pursue their goals without extra burdens put on them for
irrational reasons.
I must also admit that some of the letters on this topic bring up
a continuing prejudice which I only can hope are isolated incidents.
Although we rarely admit it, most departments I know of have been engaged
in a dozen years of slightly reverse discrimination, with the hope of
providing more role models for women, supportive colleagues, etc. I had
assumed that within the educational world, we were mostly on the same page.
I think you ought to have things changed if you are in an unfair situation,
for both you and the girls and boys who you will influence. I agree with
an earlier writer that you will be backed up if it is done in the proper
way.
Regarding " I refuse to believe that we must in any way damage or
limit young men in order to liberate young women. " Sure, but the key word
there is "must"; that has not been the way we have sometimes dealt with
this or other issues. When, in order to reach parity, we limit an
individual, even if it is to speed up a needed change, let us not kid
ourselves to what we just did. When I applied for my first teaching job I
was candidly told, "We are not hiring white males now". On the other hand,
I totally agree with the statement; and liberating young women can not help
but benefit young men as well. As our society undergoes these changes,
enacted by individuals, we ought to expect a range of ways of dealing with
these problems. Individuals will differ in their urgency for change,
compassion, experience, etc. There will be atrocities committed on both
sides. Sincerely, Steve Eiger