The Globe article offers the first logical explanation we have heard, It obviously doesn’t hold true in every case in the short run (how else According to Pinker, the male half of our species not only contains more Now, the species benefits if the most talented and genetically endowed At least this is how we understand the theory. It is fascinating to speculate Once you accept the importance of genetic propagation as a behavioral Secondly, due to deeply ingrained psycho-social habits, brainy, successful To the Dowbrigade, all of this stuff is fascinating, and deserves to be from the Boston Globe<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Boston Globe weighed in yesterday (yes, our "real" job is starting to interfere with our blogging) with their own article on the science behind Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ comments on women in the stratosphere of science. It is actually much … Continue reading ![](\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/dowbrigade\/prof.jpg\")
The
\n Boston Globe <\/a>weighed in yesterday (yes, our "real" job
\n is starting to interfere with our blogging) with their own article on
\n the science behind Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ comments on women
\n in the stratosphere of science. It is actually much more soundly
\n reasoned and unspun than the previous day’s article in sister publication
\n New York Times. <\/p>\n
\n from an evolutionary point of view, of the male dominance at the highest
\n levels
\n of science. It comes from Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, a proponent
\n of evolutionary biology. We have long been a fan of evolutionary biology
\n as an overarching context for understanding and explaining human behavior.
\n The
\n basic idea
\n is that
\n all living organisms tend to behave in ways designed to maximize the chances
\n of their genes to survive and propagate in future generations.<\/p>\n
\n to explain guys who collect comic books and live with their mothers into
\n their
\n 30’s)
\n but
\n remember this is an extemely long-term effect. Over the long haul these
\n Oedipal onanists will inevitably become extinct.<\/p>\n
\n geniuses, but also more morons, painfully obvious to anyone who has spent
\n time in an all-male dormitory or on the professional wrestling circuit. The
\n explanation for this, according to evolutionary biology, lies in the fact
\n that high performing men can have hundreds of children, while
\n even the most brilliant and successful women can only have a dozen or so
\n kids.<\/p>\n
\n members win the reproductive sweepstakes and have more kids than the dweebs
\n and dummies. This is why money and power are aphrodisiacs. Since men
\n can have so many kids, nature allows them to fall into a wider range of ability
\n parameters. So what if some of them are incompetent boobs, there will be
\n plenty at the other end of the extreme to get all the girls and propagate
\n future generations. Women reproduce fewer times, so we can’t waste
\n them, genetically, and need to keep them closer to the mean. Nature tends to play a little more genetic roulette with the males.<\/p>\n
\n on how a short term social phenomena – the relative lack of female tenured
\n professors
\n in he
\n physical
\n sciences
\n at universities like Harvard – can be connected to the extremely long-term functioning
\n of evolutionary imperatives.<\/p>\n
\n motivator, however, much becomes clear. High performing women in the sciences
\n face a double whammy which significantly lowers their potential to produce,
\n protect and insure the success of their offspring. First, by devoting the
\n time to work that is required of a Nobel-worthy scientist, they will be
\n shortchanging their families, especially their kids if they have them. Now,
\n we know that men, especially high-preforming Alpha-type men, have no problem
\n ignoring their offspring, even denying their existence, and many top male
\n scientists
\n are
\n so engrossed
\n in their
\n work
\n they tend to forget
\n they even are married and have kids, if they ever remembered to get married
\n or have kids in the first place. The whole process of procreating is a bit
\n more complicated and time consuming for women than for men, who really
\n have to pay attention for only about 90 seconds.<\/p>\n
\n women are not seen as desirable for procreative purposes as reasonably
\n smart but domestically oriented bundles of femininity The reason
\n behind this is that basically, the male ego is so fragile that most guys
\n feel threatened
\n by women they think are smarter than them. This produces the absurd phenomena
\n of smart women trying to appear dumber than they really are, and stupid
\n men trying to appear smart. In terms of evolutionary biology, women can do
\n more to insure the propagation of their genes by playing dumb and attracting
\n a rich or smart or physically endowed mate than by going for the golden ring
\n of scientific stardom.<\/p>\n
\n discussed. Unfortunately, the past history of sexual oppression and 5,000
\n years of patriarchal social dominance make it impossible to consider
\n these themes impartially or unemotionally. Personally, we don’t see what
\n everyone is getting so worked up about. So what if most Nobel-level scientists
\n and Harvard science professors are men?
\n Most
\n of
\n them are neurotic,
\n driven, obsessed and deeply unhappy individuals with tattered personal
\n lives and
\n often perilous personal,
\n financial
\n and professional insecurities. Sure, there are a few happy-go-lucky, non-conformist
\n geniuses, but none of them are on the Harvard faculty either. Be careful
\n what you wish for ladies, are you sure this is the kind of club you
\n want to join?<\/p>\n