Thursday, July 16, 2009

Harvard University: Lawrence Summers Replacement

I am sure everyone knows the fate of the former President of Harvard University when he discussed human gender dimorphisms in an Academic Conference. I'd like to present his replacement a Women's Studies Department Head, Feminist and new President of Harvard University, Drew Faust. Summers was forced to resign, and Harvard has pledged $50,000,000 to the promotion of women only.



"Opinions can only be tolerated where reason is left free to combat them"
-=President Thomas Jefferson=-

All open discourse in the highest chambers of academia, freedom of opinion and speech that contradicts feminist doctrine will not and is not tolerated. All that express differently have and will be socially executed by the order of the Feminist Party.

Below: Unofficial Transcript of Lawrence Summers actual speech that lead to his exile
Neither exact transcripts nor the tape recording of Summers' comments have been released. For some reason, the records have been sealed to public or private inquiry. Harvard and its president Drew Faust have allowed the following to be hosted on the Harvard website.

"The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society"
-=President John F. Kennedy=-

http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php

WOW, A woman who understands Dr. Summers Presentation of data:
HELENA CRONIN: Philosopher, London School of Economics; director and founder Darwin@LSE; author, The Ant and the Peacock
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin



More dumbbells but more Nobels: Why men are at the top

What gives rise to the most salient, contested and misunderstood of sex differences… differences that see men persistently walk off with the top positions and prizes, whether influence or income, whether heads of state or CEOs… differences that infuriate feminists, preoccupy policy-makers, galvanize legislators and spawn 'diversity' committees and degrees in gender studies?

I used to think that these patterns of sex differences resulted mainly from average differences between men and women in innate talents, tastes and temperaments. After all, in talents men are on average more mathematical, more technically minded, women more verbal; in tastes, men are more interested in things, women in people; in temperaments, men are more competitive, risk-taking, single-minded, status-conscious, women far less so. And therefore, even where such differences are modest, the distribution of these 3 Ts among males will necessarily be different from that among females — and so will give rise to notable differences between the two groups. Add to this some bias and barriers — a sexist attitude here, a lack of child-care there. And the sex differences are explained. Or so I thought.

But I have now changed my mind. Talents, tastes and temperaments play fundamental roles. But they alone don't fully explain the differences. It is a fourth T that most decisively shapes the distinctive structure of male — female differences. That T is Tails — the tails of these statistical distributions. Females are much of a muchness, clustering round the mean. But, among males, the variance — the difference between the most and the least, the best and the worst — can be vast. So males are almost bound to be over-represented both at the bottom and at the top. I think of this as 'more dumbbells but more Nobels'.

Consider the mathematics sections in the USA's National Academy of Sciences: 95% male. Which contributes most to this predominance — higher means or larger variance? One calculation yields the following answer. If the sex difference between the means was obliterated but the variance was left intact, male membership would drop modestly to 91%. But if the means were left intact but the difference in the variance was obliterated, male membership would plummet to 64%. The overwhelming male predominance stems largely from greater variance.

Similarly, consider the most intellectually gifted of the USA population, an elite 1%. The difference between their bottom and top quartiles is so wide that it encompasses one-third of the entire ability range in the American population, from IQs above 137 to IQs beyond 200. And who's overwhelmingly in the top quartile? Males. Look, for instance, at the boy:girl ratios among adolescents for scores in mathematical-reasoning tests: scores of at least 500, 2:1; scores of at least 600, 4:1; scores of at least 700, 13.1.

Admittedly, those examples are writ large — exceptionally high aptitude and a talent that strongly favours males and with a notably long right-hand tail. Nevertheless, the same combined causes — the forces of natural selection and the facts of statistical distribution — ensure that this is the default template for male-female differences.

Let's look at those causes. The legacy of natural selection is twofold: mean differences in the 3 Ts and males generally being more variable; these two features hold for most sex differences in our species and, as Darwin noted, greater male variance is ubiquitous across the entire animal kingdom. As to the facts of statistical distribution, they are three-fold … and watch what happens at the end of the right tail: first, for overlapping bell-curves, even with only a small difference in the means, the ratios become more inflated as one goes further out along the tail; second, where there's greater variance, there's likely to be a dumbbells-and-Nobels effect; and third, when one group has both greater mean and greater variance, that group becomes even more over-represented at the far end of the right tail.

The upshot? When we're dealing with evolved sex differences, we should expect that the further out we go along the right curve, the more we will find men predominating. So there we are: whether or not there are more male dumbbells, there will certainly be — both figuratively and actually — more male Nobels.

Unfortunately, however, this is not the prevailing perspective in current debates, particularly where policy is concerned. On the contrary, discussions standardly zoom in on the means and blithely ignore the tails. So sex differences are judged to be small. And thus it seems that there's a gaping discrepancy: if women are as good on average as men, why are men overwhelmingly at the top? The answer must be systematic unfairness — bias and barriers. Therefore, so the argument runs, it is to bias and barriers that policy should be directed. And so the results of straightforward facts of statistical distribution get treated as political problems — as 'evidence' of bias and barriers that keep women back and sweep men to the top. (Though how this explains the men at the bottom is an unacknowledged mystery.)

But science has given us biological insights, statistical rules and empirical findings … surely sufficient reason to change one's mind about men at the top.

Here is my take on it below: PLEASE COMMENT AND SHOW SOLIDARITY OR LEAVE AN OBJECTIVE ARGUMENT I DON'T WANT MEN'S AND FATHER'S RIGHTS TO BE A ONE WAY CONVERSATION!

---Above was her response to the exile of Dr. Lawrence Summers the former president of Harvard University, his subsequent replacement with Drew Faust, Women's Studies Dept head, Feminist and new president of Harvard , the dedication of $50,000,000 to promote women only and the Obama administrations plan to enact forced women only affirmative action and Title IX in all science, technical, computer and engineering departments nation wide.

Ultimately the goal is to destroy the American science, technical, computer and engineering base in the name of equality and political correctness. To enforce not equal opportunity but equal outcome between men and women by unequal means. The goal of these initiatives is to enact sanctioned discrimination against men so that women may take their place. Dr Roy Baumeister points out "Research using DNA shows that todays human population is decendend from twice as many women as men." "This difference is the single most under appreciated fact about gender" "About 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced" or more specifically our DNA composition shows that only the most successful males mated, supported and sired the most offspring and disseminated their genetic fitness over less apt males. Indeed that sexual selection, male-male competition for female selective choice is not only an element of the animal world but in humans as well. (Link at bottom)

Such selective pressures have not only created dimorphisms and differences between males and females but more specifically between males as is evident by male representation at extreeme ends of the selective trait performance spectrum. Given the selective pressure upon males and their biological value to the mated pair bond is more heavily weighted in external utility, males are represented at the top and bottom of the mesurable trait spectrum. The theory correlates correctly, if females are the constant and males the variables from which to choose one could speculate that males will have a propensity to mate with almost any willing female. It makes sense that male specific selective traits choosen by the female compound upon themselves and are carried through and amplified in succeeding generations of males and over time an extreme dichotomy and disparity of these traits will be represented in the male.

Although he did not go into detail when he presented such knowledge
I believe Dr. Summers assumed people namely women in academia would be open to the idea of gender differences or even preferences given the data, g factors and dimorphic curve information that is known to science. Instead he was forced to resign...

"Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free." -=President Thomas Jefferson=-

MEN ARE REPRESENTED AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE IQ CURVE
GREATER MALE VARIANCE IS UBIQUITOUS THROUGHOUT THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
IT IS FEMALE HYPERGAMOUS PREFERENCES FOR MALES AND SEXUAL SELECTION
THAT HAVE CREATED THE DIMORPHIC DISPARITY THAT FEMINISTS SO LOATH AND SEEK TO DESTROY.


I believe the above distribution is responsible for girls performing well in the median average and making better grades per capita in general. There are two variable offsets within the median average that equalize the performance disparity or make for "gender equality" within this range. That is, contrary to popular belief instituted by feminists, males and females have gender specific aptitudes and deficientcies in specific subjects. Females consistently perform better at reading, writing and language while boys consistently perform better at math.

Over all boys are represented at the bottom of performance relative to girls but this is offset by males predominating the upper end of intelligence and performance.

So within the median range gender deficiencies are offset by unique proficientcies of each sex in different subjects. Females will predominate the higher aggregate of median performance or grade average in general but males will predominate in the highest percentiles of grade performance as well as the lowest. When the bottom performing boys and top performing boys grade performance is weighted however OVERALL performance of boys and girls shows very little if any disparity.

Feminists use the weighted average to argue that there are not differences between males and females and that representation in all fields of study should reflect likewise, that representation in the upper areas of performance should reflect likewise. It is argued the reason this is not so is a result of blatant discrimination against females.

Feminists seek to remove males from representation and employment of this upper range performance in all science, technical and engineering departments in colleges which will extend to the removal of upper performing males from the employment in these fields in the workforce.

When gender specific interests or aptitudes are employed by males, feminist claim that females are discriminated against in these subjects such as auto mechanics, computer science, architectural, structural, mechanical engineering,electricians, avionics, electronic technicians and the list goes on....

MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE DANGER OF TITLE IX BEING EXTENDED TO THESE AREAS OF OUR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IS REAL. WE MUST DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEN AND BOYS. I URGE YOU ALL TO RESEARCH WHAT TITLE IX HAS DONE TO BOYS SPORTS PROGRAMS.

Interesting read. The general paper is also somewhat related to the creation of dimorphic disparity evidenced by DNA expressions:
Dr. Roy F. Baumeister: Is There Anything Good About Men?
Written in response to the forced exile of Dr. Lawrence Summers.
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

6 comments:

Captain Courageous said...

It has been my experience that anything given away to women is never reciprocated. Everything they get becomes "captured turf"; a bastion and repository of matriarchy, misandry and even lesbianism. They are not in any way moved by accusations that they are chauvinist, sexist or supremacist. I've never before seen bullies who demand what they want by claiming they are disadvantaged victims. Amazing!

Matías Lillo said...

This was great to read. I always have though the same thing about the Gaussian Curve graphic. In fact, also a thing that impressed me is that the curves cuts , in about IQ 115, showing that from that, Less and less womans are smart enought to compete with us.

I cannot believe that there aren't intelligent womans, but i do have a strong belief in the form of the Normal curve, and is not just the empiric evidence, is what i have lived every day and have concluded the same. So few impressive womans.

And i hate feminism. But the true must be stated, the true nature of them and the acceptance that we are not equals. I know we must state the truth of the facts, and the womans, accept their place.

Bwec said...

You Say: "I know we must state the truth of the facts, and the womans, accept their place."

And a very respected place that men are willing to sacrifice for to give to them. The problem is with the saturation of women in the work force which has driven down male wages..

We must, at this point keep the hybrid model of "a woman has the choice to work or stay home".

Unfortunately I feel as if women's liberation will continue to only have freed women and given them choices.....men.... responsibilities and liabilities of divorce i.e.(deferred capitalized payment for the choice a woman had to stay home.)

Bwec said...

Many women now, don't have a choice BUT TO WORK away from the infant child and young ones.

My main concern however is that all liabilities are put upon the man and are capitalized. It's as if what the women brings to the table is inherently valued...

Indeed women do carry inherent value in the sexual selection process. They seem to want to keep their inherent value while transferring male resources to her and "her" child by force.

We now have a 40% single women birth rate. I fear we are reaching a critical mass of isolated resource producing males. Men are beginning to question our new role as isolated resource producing males..

Anonymous said...

For those who remember, there's that movie idiocracy that explains how we might very well lose everything nature gave us (i.e. reproduction of the fittest).

Either way, very nice article, proof (if necessary) what we can all see every day.

Personally, i'm male, got an IQ over 140, know quite a few people who seem to me to be over 120, a few over 130, and none of them are female (proportion of my social circles around 1/3 women)- well maybe some 120's but that ain't all that smart so meh.

And for you americans, there are much bigger problems than just feminism if we talk about education, something all those who have seen european schools acknowledge quite well.

arya said...

thank you for the information is very helpful at all

please visit: http://ocw.gunadarma.ac.id/course