Science and gender

The "Invited Commentary" by Carol Tavris on sex differences (May/June 2005) puzzles me.

Tavris's target was Harvard's president, Lawrence Summers, because of his speculating without data that "men have an innate advantage over women in math and science." Just when I thought she had Summers neatly pinned, she let him off.

She tells us: "Males may indeed have an 'innate' advantage at the extreme end of the bell curve, up there in the stratosphere of genius, but for everyone else in the vast middle, the similarities between the sexes in behavior and aptitude are far greater than the differences."

I wish Tavris would cite a reference to that stratospheric atmosphere. Nevertheless, that, I am told, is just where Harvard tries to recruit its faculty, at the high end where Tavris seems to volunteer that there may be a male advantage.

So why does Tavris attack Summers for suggesting the same thing?

Irwin Tessman

Professor Emeritus

Department of Biological Sciences

Purdue University

West Lafayette, Indiana

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER essays should address the science involved in a topic. Carol Tavris's screed on sex differences emphasizes the unchallenged need to ensure that all interested in science and mathematics are encouraged but doesn't address in depth any actual sex differences.

There are differences between groups. At the high end of an achievement scale, these differences show, although they're camouflaged in the vast middle of ability ranges. The overwhelming dominance of Kenyan and Ethiopian men in the Boston Marathon isn't due to a bias against white runners. And the men's marathon winner is always faster than the women's. But as ultra-marathon running matures, it may be that their women have an innate advantage as well.

As an example of difference in the mind, not body; homosexuality seems to be innate, not due to how people are taught to perceive the world, their "socialization," or how attractive a future sexual orientation might seem.

Women were once unfairly excluded from the professions of law, medicine, and engineering. They now comprise significant proportions of law-school and medical-school entrants but still a very small percentage of engineering-school entrants. It's incredible that social-interaction-challenged engineers have managed to continue to exclude women while doctors and lawyers have not.

Tavris is entertaining with Chocolate Aversion Disorder, but I would have welcomed a more courageous stance by SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. We got only more warmed-over outrage.

Carl Gurtman

York, Maine

With regard to the commentary by Carol Tavris:

1. Tavris was quick to point out that Lawrence Summers did not present any data to justify his statements. However, I find her own commentary to be devoid of numbers or graphs. Is the pot possibly calling the kettle black when she says, "For the record, let's note that Dr. Summers did not present any data in his remarks"?

2. Later, Tavris emphasizes that "Males indeed have an 'innate' advantage at the extreme end of the bell curve, up there in the stratosphere of genius, but for everyone else in the vast middle, the similarities between the sexes in behavior and aptitude are also far greater than the differences." I have to wonder whether, while composing her argument, Tavris had considered that the similarities in DNA between humans and chimpanzees are also far greater than the differences? Nonetheless, there is a marked difference in what results. I say this not to come across as a bigot or chauvinist but only to identify the apparent flaw in such an argument....

3. Tavris stands on what I consider to be very shaky ground when making the statement "But 'socialization' is wrong too." Her own use of quotation marks around the word socialization indicates that its definition is fairly vague. Perhaps I was mistaken, but when I read Summers's comments, I assumed his reference to socialization referred to environmental influences (as opposed to genetic influences) including such things as parenting, education, culture, media, law, business, and government. In which case, the influences that Tavris identifies later in that same paragraph (occupational structure, career demands, availability of day care, percentage of women in the field, influence of friends and peers, the economy, and cultural norms) all fall within the more broadly interpreted definition of socialization. Certainly, all of the above can be sources of bias that lead directly or indirectly to disparities. But then, I didn't find anything in Summers's speech that would indicate otherwise.

4. Finally, Tavris indicates that the state of women's rights is cyclic and dependent on "the current level of hysteria among religious conservatives about sex, marriage, and morals." No argument here. My question though is why more women seem willing to both seek out and accept teleological explanations than men. Is that observed tendency real or just perceived? If real, is it universal or simply a local aberration that I am encountering here in the Bible Belt or here in the twenty-first century? And, if it is both real and universal, what are the potential causes of this tendency (biological or environmental)? It seems to me that this is highly relevant to the question of why there is a disparity between the sexes in the sciences.