Le 2013-03-12 à 11:19, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjo...@comcast.net> > wrote: >> At 07:56 AM 3/12/2013, Dan Harkins wrote: >>> While these studies are interesting and thought provoking, I think it is >>> wrong, and very dangerous, to use these studies to justify blanket >>> statements about intelligence, group or otherwise. >> >> I'm laughing a bit about this thread. For example, there's also >> "substantial evidence" that young women and young men do better in gender >> segregated schools because the women's IQs plunge due to primping and >> displaying and men's IQs plunge due to testosterone if they're kept >> together. Unfortunately, there's also "substantial evidence" that doing >> things this way can lead to some socialization issues (where both groups >> tend to have warped views of the members of the other groups). (I myself >> doubt both versions of the "substantial evidence") > [MB] I too find your response and some others laughable. I would > agree that some of your statements with regards to all boys and girls > schools are wrong, however, there is indeed research highlighting that > girls do better in all girls schools due the fact that they are given > the attention that often goes to the boys in math and science classes. > The rest I is untrue based on my experiences, but I would certainly > welcome someone pointing out research supporting your statements. > Both my sons have gone to or go to all boys schools (since first > grade). Their girlfriends go to all girls schools. There is no > socialization issues in general. That all said, my sons' school has > some of the geekiest kids in the DFW area, so it is likely that there > may be *slightly* more issues with socialization than the average > public school. [/MB] I think we are going out of scope of the problem we are trying to address. Marc. >> >> Seriously - diversity is generally good. I think we all get that. Going >> off and trying to support that general statement with (Dan's words, but I >> think I agree) "cherry picked" data isn't going to advance that cause much. > [MB] The data isn't cherry picked - there has been *lots* of research > on this topic over the past decade (and even those previous). Such > studies are doubted because I am sure they are not of any interest to > the folks that suggest they don't exist. So, these wouldn't have been > on your radar. Not surprising, those that are doubting that IETF has > any issue with diversity are folks that aren't in the minority- it's > really hard to understand an issue if you haven't dealt with it > yourself. There's lots of research showing lots of bias in our > society - the fact that many have never chosen to read any of it does > not mean it doesn't exist. [/MB] >> >> Mike >> >>
