@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 08/12/94 -- Vol. 13, No. 7
MEETINGS UPCOMING:
Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are in Middletown 1R-400C
Wednesdays at noon.
_D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C
08/13 Movie: WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE (Saturday night, 8PM, RSVP)
08/20 Movie: THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (Saturday night, 8PM, RSVP)
08/24 Book: VIRTUAL LIGHT by William Gibson (Hugo Nominee)
08/27 Movie: *No film this week*
09/03 Movie: *No film this week*
09/07 Book: A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT by Mark Twain
(Classics)
09/28 Book: MINING THE OORT by Frederik Pohl (tentative)
10/19 Book: INTERVIEW IWTH A VAMPIRE by Anne Rice (movie tie-ins)
11/09 Book: FRANKENSTEIN (Classics *and* movies tie-ins)
Outside events:
The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the second
Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call 201-933-2724 for
details. The New Jersey Science Fiction Society meets on the third
Saturday of every month in Belleville; call 201-432-5965 for details.
MT Chair: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 m.r.leeper@att.com
HO Chair: John Jetzt MT 2G-432 908-957-5087 j.j.jetzt@att.com
HO Co-Librarian: Nick Sauer HO 4F-427 908-949-7076 n.j.sauer@att.com
HO Co-Librarian: Lance Larsen HO 2C-318 908-949-4156 l.f.larsen@att.com
MT Librarian: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 m.r.leeper@att.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist:
Rob Mitchell MT 2D-536 908-957-6330 r.l.mitchell@att.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-329 908-957-2070 e.c.leeper@att.com
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
1. I don't know. I doubt that I am the only one who invents things
and then never does anything with the ideas. There should be a
good place where you can tell people about an idea you have and
find out if it is any good. But you end up in this dilemma. There
are three kinds of ideas. Ideas worth money, good ideas that are
not worth money but are still good, and simply bad ideas. If an
THE MT VOID Page 2
idea is so good that it is a money maker or so bad that it will
make you look foolish, you don't want to tell the world about it.
None of my ideas are in the last category, of course. At least I
don't think so. But still you are never sure if you are giving
away something that should be earning money. Well, the heck with
it. I will publish here and see where it gets me.
I had to paint a windowsill at home so I bought the varnish and
some paint thinner. It took three coats. For the first coat I
painted and cleaned the brush in paint thinner. When it came time
for the second coat the brush was all stuck together. I could
break the bristles up in pencil-width clumps but it still was no
good for painting. Now what? I said the heck with it and went to
the rag box and pulled out an old crew sock. I put my hand in a
plastic bag and pulled the crew sock over it. Maybe I could paint
with that as well as with a brush. I just dipped my sock covered
hand in the varnish and see how well I could paint with that. I
should have known better because nobody paints with a crew sock,
right? It turned out no, it was not as good as using a brush--it
was a lot better. The varnish went on smoother, more evenly, and
in something like a quarter of the time. There were fewer drips,
too. It ruined the sock. I found that for the third coat I needed
to use a clean portion on the sole of the sock. Big deal. The
value of a rag crew sock on the open market is nearly negligible.
Well, it has already been noted by some that paint pads are a good
idea. But the backing of a paint pad is a piece of plastic. It is
not as flexible as a nice old crew sock. The sock really shapes
itself to the surface being painted. Now, have I just given away
an idea worth building an industry on, I doubt it, but who knows?
I do think that paint pads are better than paint brushes, but this
is better than either of them.
This next one is almost surely not a money-maker, but it could be a
lifesaver. Many summers are really hot and at the hottest point
you hear about people actually dying from hyperthermia. Air
conditioning is expensive, and many people, particularly the old
cannot afford it. But there are people who die for the lack of it.
Now when I was in grad school I had to study in an apartment that
was between 100 and 105 degrees. There was no air conditioning. I
could have gotten on my bicycle and rode to campus, but that would
have gotten me even hotter. What I needed was a low cost heat
pump. So I invented one and stayed cool for basically no money.
What did I use? Wet clothing. I would soak a t-shirt in warm
water, wring it out, and wear it. In the hottest part of the day I
would also sit in front of a cheap electric fan. You know what the
downside was? It took me a while to learn to use warm water rather
than cold. Wearing cold water is as much of a shock as diving into
it. Once I learned not to cool myself too much I found it fairly
comfortable. If I had to deal with other people I would just pull
a shirt over the wet t-shirt. It worked almost as well and is
almost unnoticeable. Now I very rarely hear of anyone who dies
THE MT VOID Page 3
from the heat who cannot afford a little water and it would have
cooled them down considerably and perhaps saved their lives. I
know. I still use this technique at home and especially when I
travel. It works. So when the temperature hits 95, why is nobody
telling people to do this to escape the heat. It could save lives.
It also is really good for sunburn.
Hey, anybody out there have wacky ideas that work, I might publish
them here.
===================================================================
2. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule review: This is the best spy film to be
released in several years. It is also the most
intelligent film in the Jack Ryan series based on
the Tom Clancy novels so far. Screen credit goes to
three top-notch screenwriters. There is one
breath-taking action sequence, a generous dollop of
government skullduggery, and a plot that will seem
to be taken from headlines of recent U.S. history.
This is as good as any of the James Bond films.
Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4).
When the U.S. Coast Guard intercepts a derelict yacht floating in
American waters, it discovers that it was the scene of a grisly set
of murders. The victim was a prominent businessman and his family,
all personal friends of U.S. President Bennett (Donald Moffat).
Bennett is shocked and angry, particularly when investigation
proves the murdered man had financial ties to Columbian drug lords.
Bennett hints to his security advisors that the time has come to
start striking back against the Columbian drug families. And the
action taken and its results are the heart of this story.
Harrison Ford returns as Jack Ryan, and he remains a disappointing
choice. Ryan is someone who should be alert, perhaps hyper-active,
and should have a youthful appearance to live up to his boy scout
image. Even with his character under fire, Ford seems only 90%
awake. He is popular with audiences, but his acting is a
liability, in my opinion. Donald Moffat returns to playing a
President not unlike his Lyndon Johnson of _T_h_e _R_i_g_h_t _S_t_u_f_f. Adding
no new tricks to his bag, Harris Yulin, familiar for many roles as
villains, plays National Security Advisor James Cutter. Willem
Dafoe does not stretch his talents much as a commando. Anne Archer
repeats her role as Cathy Ryan. Miguel Sandoval is a rather
winning rich drug lord. It is probably Moffat and Sandoval who
stand out as the better actors of the film. But the emphasis is
more on the story than on acting.
THE MT VOID Page 4
Phillip Noyce, the director of the (recommended) thriller _D_e_a_d
_C_a_l_m, and the less satisfying _P_a_t_r_i_o_t _G_a_m_e_s does have a better
script to work from in _C_l_e_a_r _a_n_d _P_r_e_s_e_n_t _D_a_n_g_e_r. Generally a
script credited to three people will have some problems, but _C_l_e_a_r
_a_n_d _P_r_e_s_e_n_t _D_a_n_g_e_r seems to suffer from this less than most such
films. That could be because of who the three people are. One is
John Milius who wrote films like _M_a_g_n_u_m _F_o_r_c_e, _A_p_o_c_a_l_y_p_s_e _N_o_w,
_C_o_n_a_n _t_h_e _B_a_r_b_a_r_i_a_n, and general action films. Then there is
Donald Stewart, veteran of _M_i_s_s_i_n_g and the two previous Jack Ryan
films. The third writer was Steven Zaillian, whose screen credits
include _A_w_a_k_e_n_i_n_g_s, _P_a_t_r_i_o_t _G_a_m_e_s, _S_e_a_r_c_h_i_n_g _f_o_r _B_o_b_b_y _F_i_s_c_h_e_r, and
_S_c_h_i_n_d_l_e_r'_s _L_i_s_t. It is an unlikely trio, but it works in a script
that has action and is cerebral. Somebody at Paramount was
concerned about getting good writing and the screenwriting credits
are as impressive as any of the other credits.
The script is good, but not perfect. Toward the end of the film
the action starts becoming a little less intelligent and a little
more action-oriented. In short, it becomes a little too
reminiscent of James Bond films. Though an action sequence in the
first third is very well done (if one ignores a touch of cliched
slow motion). This one piece is the high point of the film and
really leaves the audience breathless. After Ryan escapes from
this trap, there is little else he does that is as impressive. A
sequence intercutting between a formal ceremony and a bloody
massacre perhaps borrows a little heavily from the "Godfather"
films. Also refreshing in the writing is the presence of a strong
and intelligent woman who is clearly not present for decorative
value. But what is most impressive in this film is the moral
ambiguity of Ryan's position. Ryan remains the hero to the
audience, but for the first time in the series, a serious case
could be made that he is not acting in the best interests of the
United States.
Of course the classic spy film series to date has been the James
Bond series. What I think is often forgotten is that the Bond
films all too often had contrived and simplistic plots. They were
better than this year's _T_r_u_e _L_i_e_s in that regard, but there was
little to engage the viewer's mind. The plots were too dependent
on chase sequences and fight scenes. The other extreme is a story
like _T_i_n_k_e_r, _T_a_i_l_o_r, _S_o_l_d_i_e_r, _S_p_y in which everything that goes on
is cerebral. The Jack Ryan films are a happy medium between the
two and none more so than _C_l_e_a_r _a_n_d _P_r_e_s_e_n_t _D_a_n_g_e_r.
There are more reasons to prefer Ryan to Bond for spy films. The
Bond films spend a lot of time on sexual subplots. It is fun, but
it takes valuable time from the plot. It is always clear that
Ryan's best working organ is between his ears. Clancy's Ryan is a
happily married family man who doesn't fool around ... in any sense
of the word. With that screen time out of the way, the writing has
more room for intelligence (no pun intended). And unlike in Bond
THE MT VOID Page 5
films which have long chase scenes, one never feels that it is
action scenes alone driving the plot. The action pieces are there,
but they serve the plot rather than the reverse. I think I can
safely say that _C_l_e_a_r _a_n_d _P_r_e_s_e_n_t _D_a_n_g_e_r not only has a more
satisfying plot than any of the Bond films, it is even the best of
the Ryan films. The basic idea of the last two films could really
be told with some justice in one or two sentences each. That is
most definitely not the case in _C_l_e_a_r _a_n_d _P_r_e_s_e_n_t _D_a_n_g_e_r. The game
keeps changing for Jack Ryan through the entire film. Rather than
this being a two-sided game, there is the kind of chaos one gets
with several sides pulling in different directions. The script
makes clever use of recent U.S. history to tell parts of the story
that there would not be time to tell explicitly in the film. _C_l_e_a_r
_a_n_d _P_r_e_s_e_n_t _D_a_n_g_e_r is the best spy films in several years. It also
is as riveting as any Bond film ever made. I would give _C_l_e_a_r _a_n_d
_P_r_e_s_e_n_t _D_a_n_g_e_r a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
===================================================================
3. EVE'S RIB: SEARCHING FOR THE BIOLOGICAL ROOTS OF SEX DIFFERENCES
by Robert Pool (Crown, 1994); GENDER AND CULTURE: KIBBUTZ WOMEN
REVISITED by Melford E. Spiro (1979); FAILING AT FAIRNESS: HOW
AMERICA'S SCHOOLS CHEAT GIRLS by Myra and David Sadker (Scribners,
1994) (reviewed by Dale L. Skran)
_E_v_e'_s _R_i_b is subtitled "Searching for the Biological Roots of Sex
Differences," and it is Pool's first book. I was intrigued at
reading a complete, general survey of recent research into sex
differences, and, indeed, Pool has provided the best such book I am
aware of for the general reader. However, although not exactly an
"old fashioned MCP," Pool has as his major thesis that there are
significant biological sex differences, and that what he calls
"identity feminists" are doomed to disappointment in their quest
for an androgynous society.
Perhaps Pool's fundamental confusion is that since a difference
exists, it must of necessity, have great significance. He spends
so much time listing sex differences that little energy is left to
consider how important they might actually be. For example,
consider one of the more significant male/female differences, the
"spatial skills," as measured by various obscure tests that involve
rotating geometric figures. These skills are rather cavalierly
assumed by Pool to be associated with engineering and science,
although no engineers or scientists are interviewed on this topic.
Further, rotating these geometric figures is said to be related to
mathematical ability, but this is never documented either. We are
told over and over that women perform much worse than men on such
tests, however.
THE MT VOID Page 6
As a computer/software engineer with over thirteen years
experience, I can state with confidence that I am rarely, if ever,
called on to use any of these "spatial skills" on the job. Clearly
some spatial skills are relevant to mechanical or civil engineers,
but even here computers are now used for these sorts of tasks,
making the ability to rotate solids in your head about as relevant
as the ability to hit a rabbit with a stone or spear. As a writer,
one supposes that Pool should be forgiven for knowing little about
other professions, but these sorts of stereotypes are at the root
of sexism.
It would have been illuminating to study various occupations as
actually practiced and consider what kinds of skills are used.
Aside from some very artificial, "mock hunting" examples like
"skeet shooter" and "baseball pitcher" it is probably difficult to
find a modern occupation where there is a meaningful difference in
the expected gender balance (given equal support for both genders,
of course). Even occupations that stereotypically involve spatial
skills (plumber, auto mechanic) also involve perceptual skills and
arithmetic (where women, are, on the average, superior).
In Chapter 1 ("Equal but different"), Pool reprises information
gathered on female test score difference. Camilla Benbow's study
of the mathematically talented showed that among 7th and 8th
graders, boys with SAT-Math scores over 700 outnumbered girls 13 to
1, and 4 to 1 for scores over 600. Pool points out, correctly,
that differences in classes taken are not likely to account for
this difference, since boys and girls are generally taking the same
classes in the middle grades. Benbow was, as you might expect,
attacked for ignoring environmental influences, and is described as
having spent most of the 80s looking for such influences. Her
techniques included asking girls whether they liked math or not,
whether their parents helped them, whether they thought it would be
useful in their careers, and even their toy preferences in early
childhood. Her conclusion, "After fifteen years of looking for an
environmental explanation and getting zero results, I gave up."
It is interesting to note that another recently published book,
_F_a_i_l_i_n_g _a_t _F_a_i_r_n_e_s_s by Myra and David Sadker, seemed to have no
trouble, using hidden cameras and careful analysis, in finding a
wide variety of ways in which teachers discourage girls from
becoming capable problem solvers, notably by being easy on them
while challenging the boys. In fact, _F_a_i_l_i_n_g chronicles such a
widespread pattern of discrimination against girls in nominally
"equal" classes that it is surprising that any girl ends up doing
well in math. Benbow seems to believe that her surveys should have
found different in attitudes, but it is clear that there aren't
many! Girls, up to a point, like math, think it is important, etc.
... but they just aren't very good at it--because they are never
allowed to experience the challenges that boys are, because they
are discouraged from taking chances, constantly interrupted by
THE MT VOID Page 7
teachers, given less time to answer questions, and generally
ignored.
Pool goes on to cover the average-50 point difference in SAT math
scores between girls and boys. He notes that in the 60s girls
actually led in SAT verbal scores by 10 points, but now boys lead
by 10 points. This is attributed to the fact that more girls than
boys now take the tests, leading to a lower average score for
females. This discussion suggests that girls may have been gaining
in math as well, but the change in the test population has covered
it up. Other studies are quoted that indicate that on other math
tests, girls have been trending upward. Girls are said to be
better than boys at arithmetic but worse at problem solving. Pool
constantly assumes that conditions for girls are improving in the
schools, and that over time their scores will trend upward to some
biological limit. A brief glance at _F_a_i_l_i_n_g" suggests Pool's depth
of naivete--although superficial changes have been made, schools
basically function to reinforce traditional sexual roles in a
highly effective fashion. It is also interesting to note that the
sort of subtle "guiding" that the Sadkers' document might produce
exactly the differences noted--boys being better at tougher
problems, and girls excelling at rote, easy to understand
arithmetic problems.
For me, one of the most telling points was that the originators of
the "IQ" test, Binet (of Stanford-Binet), removed questions that
women tended to get right more than men to give the sexes equal
scores (page 22). Of course, if men had tended to get higher
scores, we can be sure that this would have been touted as "proof"
of male superiority. Pool then notes several areas where girls do
better than boys, including average number of words used in
sentences, number of grammatical errors, use of more complex
grammatical constructions, and remembering details of a story read
to them. Girls and boys are more or less evenly represented among
high verbal SAT scores, and Pool puts forward as a probable reason
the SAT's use of verbal analogies, the one type of verbal test
where boys do significantly better than girls. Since this type of
question has been removed in a recent revision of the SAT, we can
reasonably expect the female average verbal SAT to exceed that for
boys, at least among high scorers. It is also noted by Pool that
boys make up most of the poorer verbal students, including 80% of
stutterers and 75% of severe dyslexics. This last data does indeed
point to some kind of underlying biological explanation.
Other interesting gender differences include:
1. Males are better at map reading, while females can more
easily find their way using landmarks. This has been
confirmed in rats (comparing the use of visual orientation vs
landmarks), so it seems more likely to be of a biological
nature.
THE MT VOID Page 8
2. Males learn better when taught using different methods in
combination (i.e., learning a maze both forward and
backward), while females learn better when taught using only
one method. They may even find using two methods to be
confusing.
One of the annoying things about Pool is his tendency to regard his
experience with his wife as relevant to all women. Although the
various anecdotes he mentions make the book more amusing, they
represent a fundamental scientific error--extrapolation from a
single example. If Pool's wife were more mathematically talented,
it seems possible the book would have focused more on how women are
discouraged from studying math rather than on how females are
biologically inferior at math. In either case, one example proves
little, yet his one example seems to have determined the direction
of his thesis ("different but equal").
Chapter 1 concludes with a touching essay on the theme that people
tend to get all excited over these differences, quoting sociologist
Alice Rossi as saying "there is no rule of nature or of social
organization that says men and women have to be the same or do the
same things in order to be socially, economically, and politically
equal (page 34). Pool asserts that saying women must be just like
men in all aspects to be equal is doomed to failure. Although
vacuously true on some level, it fails to document the fact that
some roles do really matter. If all politicians are men, and
females don't control any contervailing institutions in society,
"equality" will be little more than a sham. If mathematically
talented men control the direction of science, and science
determines the direction of society, then the fact (if it is a
fact) that women lack high levels of mathematical talent
effectively excludes them from any real involvement in the future
evolution of society. If men are garbage collectors and women
nurses, it probably doesn't matter much, unless, as in the real
world, garbage collectors are paid twice what nurses are paid.
We'll return to this theme when Pool examines the kibbutz lifestyle
as the final capstone for his argument.
Chapter 2 ("A Tale of Two Sexes") examines in more detail various
studies of gender differences. Here we get the basic facts:
1. Men are 9% taller than women, on the average.
2. 40% of male body weight is muscle, vs. 23% for females. (I'd
like to see this comparison for Olympic athletes instead of
average people).
3. Females hear high pitched sounds better than males
4. Males are more sensitive to bright lights than females.
THE MT VOID Page 9
5. Males can more easily see moving objects than females.
6. Males are 60% more likely to be involved in fatal car
accidents, but females experience 12% more accidents per mile
driven.
7. Females have superior night vision than males.
8. Males have better mid-field vision, but females have better
peripheral vision.
9. Males are more likely to be color blind.
10. Females have a superior sense of touch, smell, and taste.
11. Males tend to be superior in throwing and catching objects.
12. Females live longer in the US.
13. Males are more prone to ulcers (confirmed by experiments on
rats).
Events take a more dubious turn when Pool recounts four "myths"
that according to Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin in _T_h_e
_P_s_y_c_h_o_l_o_g_y _o_f _S_e_x _D_i_f_f_e_r_e_n_c_e_s are untrue:
1. Girls are more "social" than boys.
2. Girls are more "suggestible" than boys.
3. Girls have lower self-esteem.
4. Girls are better at rote learning.
The Sadkers in _F_a_i_l_i_n_g seem to have had little difficulty finding a
large amount of evidence that girls of all ages had lower self-
esteem than boys, and that female self-esteem decreased over time.
Maccoby/Jacklin did their work twenty years ago, and the Sadkers
used some new studies, but these kind of fundamental discrepancies
in the quality of the research should raise our suspicions in
general.
Pool then surveys, without (by his own statement) any consideration
of possible cultural effects, various observed behavioral
differences, including:
1. Boys' games are more active than girls' games.
2. Boys like toys they can move (trucks, blocks, etc.)
THE MT VOID Page 10
3. Girls prefer dolls and arts/crafts.
4. Girls do the same things for longer periods of time.
5. Boys games tend to have more complex rules than girl's games,
and the boys pay more attention to the rules.
6. Boys tend to prefer team sports, girls individual sports.
To conclude Chapter 2, Pool surveys in more detail gender
differences on special IQ tests. Many of these items are defined
by "d", the "effect size," defined as the average male score minus
the average female score, divided by the standard deviation. If
d=0, there is no gender difference, while d > 0.8 is a large gender
difference. The book could use a few pictures to illustrate the
overlap of various abilities, but for some reason none are
included.
Among the items noted:
1. Women are better at "associational fluency," the ability to
come up with synonyms for a given word, and by a large margin
(about 2x better, but this results in d=1.2).
2. Women are better at "word fluency," the ability to generate
words starting with a given letter, but with d=0.2.
3. Women are somewhat better than men at anagrams, but also with
d=0.2.
4. Men are better than women on spatial tests (rotating an
object in your head, deciding what a three dimensional object
will look like when flattened), with d=0.8.
5. Boys are better at throwing balls than girls, with d=3.0, the
largest gender difference observed for any trait.
6. For height, the 9% average advantage results in d=2.0.
7. Females are better at "perceptual speed," the ability to
compare items and notice differences.
8. Females appear to have a better short term memory than males,
at least for lists of words just presented in a test; however
the males seem to have the edge in remembering pictures.
9. Females are 20% better at recalling details from a story just
read.
One of the more controversial phenomenon is the greater variability
of IQ (and other abilities) among males, with there apparently
THE MT VOID Page 11
being more "genius" IQs among males, as well as more "retarded"
males. Here Pool quotes Arthur Jensen, best known for his attempts
to prove blacks are lower in IQ than whites. He notes that some
have questioned these results, but does not elaborate.
Several things can be noted from this consideration of gender
differences on various tests:
1. As a skill becomes more complex (i.e., novel writing vs
synonym generation) the gender differences drop on tests.
2. The difference in average scores is mainly very small, and
probably has very little practical effect on the average
person.
3. Nobody would care very much about this if it weren't for the
big male advantage in spatial skills, and their supposed
importance in various careers. (Pool notes that "high
spatial ability is related to success in such diverse jobs as
automotive mechanic, architect, and watch repairman.")
4. Of course, these measurements were taken mainly among adults
or school children, and don't do more than indicate possible
biological differences. It may be that if girls were given
trucks and not allowed to engage in sexually segregated play
that the scores would be much more similar. One experiment
noted that boys had an advantage in playing a "shoot-em-up"
type video game they were initially unfamiliar with, and that
as they practiced, the male edge got greater. This is
supposed to prove that the male edge was not due to more
practice on their part (page 59). Isn't it just as possible
that the girls didn't give a *!&** and just didn't try very
hard? A lot of these experiments remind me of researchers
trying to develop a cat IQ test. In one case, cats were
timed on how long it took them to escape from a sack. One
cat refused to leave the sack, and spent about an hour
playing by rolling about in the sack. Now, does this mean
the cat couldn't have gotten out of the sack in five seconds
flat if it wanted to?
5. The supposed greater male IQ variability, which is also the
most difficult to ascribe a cultural explanation to, also
provides the most concern, since it suggests that societies'
leaders will always be men. It is interesting in this regard
to examine a book titled "Terman's Kids," by Shurkin. Terman
selected a large group of "geniuses" using IQ tests and
followed them throughout their lives. More males than
females were in the group (variability again). However,
Nobelists Shockley and Alvarez tested too low to be in the
group, which contained no other Nobelists! This suggests that
whatever IQ tests measure, it is not the most relevant factor
THE MT VOID Page 12
for success in the sciences.
Pool concludes the chapter with another of his well-meaning but
patronizing statements, "... men and women may carry different
items in their toolboxes, but the toolboxes are the same size."
In Chapter 4 ("Echoes of the Womb"), girls with CAH (Congenital
Adrenal Hyperplasia) are used as a tool to examine biological
gender differences. In this disorder, girls receive high levels of
testosterone in the womb. These girls outscored a non-CAH control
group (their sisters) in spatial ability, as well as exhibited
male-type toy preferences. However, the specific mechanism by
which testosterone influences spatial ability has yet to be
determined. For some reason, Pool never actually lists the scores
of the various groups. Also, it is worth noting that the numbers
of CAH girls tested is low since this is a rare condition, leading
to the possibility of random clustering effects. This work has
been substantially reproduced in rats, however, with maze running
techniques being used as the gender differentiator (landmarks vs
external orientation). A variety of other hormonal conditions are
considered, but the results are clear--male hormones influence
greater spatial abilities. Left uncharted is the actual
relationship that dynamic spatial abilities have to solving math
problems.
Pool is at his most objective when considering the possible
significance of various brain differences as they relate to males,
females, gays, and lesbians (see Chapter 5, "My Brain's Bigger than
Your Brain," and Chapter 6, "Not Quite the Opposite Sex"). However,
when discussing IQs and math tests, he has a remarkable ability to
fail to see obvious weaknesses in the various methodologies being
used.
The bottom line here is that there are gender based differences
(male brains, are, on the average, somewhat larger), and that
nobody really knows what the differences mean (i.e., there are
results, but they are controversial!). For example, does the
gender difference noted above mean that men are smarter or that
their neurons are less efficient? In any case, the correlations
between brain size and IQ seem small.
In Chapter 7 ("Variations on a Theme"), Pool looks at gender
differences in how the brain processes information. For example,
it appears that in boys the right hemisphere is involved in
identifying shapes, while in girls both hemispheres are equally
involved. Once again, we see a lot of differences listed, but the
significance is mainly muddy. Also, once again a chapter concludes
with a personal note as Pool returns to his wife once again, this
time to consider her as a mix of "masculine" and "feminine" traits.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about gender differences is that
although they do seem to be hormonally influenced, they aren't
THE MT VOID Page 13
really that great, and there seems to be *a lot* of variation in
each sex.
Pool examines an interesting hormonal experiment in Chapter 8
("Raging Hormones"). In this experiment, women were given a
spatial test with a large variation (5 of 6 males outperform the
average female) either during their menstrual period, or during the
period in which they were taking the Pill (which contains
estrogen). The scores during the menstrual period were much
higher--closing 2/3 of the male/female gap. This suggests that
certain abilities are not only variable genetically (between
people) and variable based on gender (due to hormone influence in
the womb), but also in the same person over time based on the ebb
and flow of hormones (which also occurs in males). For example, in
monkeys who win fights, testosterone levels rise, while in monkeys
who lose the levels drop. It is also interesting to note that a
relatively modest change in hormonal levels nearly erased the
gender difference, suggesting that the underlying brains are very
similar in capability, but that the hormones have some considerable
influence. It is also worth noting that the variations observed
are not that significant--the women with the high estrogen levels
could still perform the tests, just with a few mistakes perhaps.
Additional tests indicated that high levels of estrogen improved
manual dexterity in females. These tests also showed that only
about half of the women experienced that fluctuation of ability
with hormone levels. Tests on men produced the surprising result
that too much testosterone produced low spatial ability scores!
Overall, there appears to be an optimal testosterone level for many
spatial skills which is higher than what the average woman has, but
lower than what the average man has.
Chapter 9 ("Nature/Nurture") is one of the more disappointing
efforts, consisting as it does mainly of Pool's meanderings rather
than solid scientific results. One of the more interesting studies
shows that female newborns make 50% more eye contact with care-
givers than males. This in turns seems to result in mothers
touching their boys more, and talking to their girls more. This
apparently leads the boys to be more confident since they are
cuddled more, and the girls to have higher verbal skills. The
point is that very small gender differences at birth get
exaggerated rapidly due to different "micro-environments"
experienced by the two sexes. Once group play occurs, any
nurturing boy or ball-throwing girl rapidly gets the message and is
forced into "appropriate" play. Even spatial ability is
influenced; since boys can't see faces very well, they like to play
with things they can see--blocks, trucks, etc., which in turn may
help to develop spatial ability. Some experiments are also
discussed that show that male and female rats develop different
neural patterns when placed in a stimulating environment, but the
exact meaning of these differences, as noted above, remains
THE MT VOID Page 14
obscure.
Another interesting result comes from IQ twin studies. In these
studies, the IQs of twins raised separately and apart are studied,
along with the IQs of unrelated adoptive siblings. Roughly, IQ
seems to be about 50% inherited. However, the 50% of the variation
in the environment is _n_o_t due to such things as books in the house,
etc. that are the same for all people living in the same house.
The environment that matters is mainly other things that are
different even for people living in the same house, such as being
born or adopted first.
Here Pool begins some questionable meanderings, concluding that "In
order for nurture to be responsible for a big difference among
individuals, there must be some major differences in the
environments in which they were raised. Such things as disparities
in parental encouragement or having different toys to play with
just won't have major consequences on average." A study by Lytton
and Romney is quoted to conclude that "... parents in Western
societies don't treat their sons and daughters that differently,
except to teach them how society expects boys and girls to behave."
He (Pool) then states "Is that enough to create the observed sex
differences ...? Many sex difference researchers think not, given
that all environmental influences, ... account for less than half
the variation in cognitive abilities ... (page 219)." Pool seems
to have forgotten that no gender difference is really that great
(9% difference in height average is one of the biggest), and the
difference in male/female micro-environment is so extreme that it
could easily account for much of the observed differences.
On page 220, Pool starts to look for confirmation for his thesis in
cross-cultural studies. One study compares Japanese students with
American students. Not too surprisingly, Japanese girls beat
American boys with ease, but, in "confirmation" of his thesis,
Japanese boys still beat Japanese girls. One must question a
methodology that involves confirming a test in one sexist society
with a test in another, even more sexist society! It would have
been more interesting to look at a society where women are very
strong in the professions (e.g., some Eastern European countries).
In truth, however, there is no society I know of where women are
truly treated "equally," with the possible exception of some
primitive island societies that don't use math very much!
Pool presents the common place modern version of the evolution of
sexual differences (Chapter 10, "Echoes of the Past"), with the
stone throwing men developing their spatial skills and the plant
gathering women developing perceptual speed (ability to extract
detail from a background). Just this very day I was walking with my
wife (I can use my wife as an anecdotal example too!), and she
pointed out a nearby butterfly. I, of course, could not see the
butterfly until it moved! Pool notes that the greatest sex
THE MT VOID Page 15
difference is the ability men have to throw rocks fast, which is
greater even than the difference in the rotation skills. However,
the modern significance of these kinds of skill differences seems
arguable. Often, the focus seems to be on what men do better than
women rather than the reverse. For example, consider the combat
platoon. In such a group, one person "walks the point" to look for
booby traps. Surely women, with their greater perceptual speed and
body awareness, better night vision, as well as superior senses of
smell and hearing, would be better qualified than men for this
hazardous task. The difference in male and female map reading
techniques is also noted, with men understanding abstract
directions and women landmarks. Surely a platoon of mixed sexes
would be more likely to find its way than one that relied only on
abstract maps or only on landmarks? In any case, Pool is so busy
listing differences that he misses how men and women could,
together, accomplish more as a team than as separate groups.
Pool concludes with Chapter 11 ("Where do we go from here?"), which
is by far the least well thought out chapter. An annoying
characteristic of Pool is his air-headed idealism. On page 246 he
notes "Everyone agrees: Boys and girls should be given the same
opportunities to learn and develop skills as they are growing up,
and later in life men and women should be given the same economic,
political, and social opportunities." In fact, the opposite is
closer to being true, that many Americans believe women's main goal
in life is to bear and care for children, and that "women's lib" is
destroying the family. Of course, few will actually come right out
and say they are against "equal opportunity," but they act like
girls are better off at home.
An even more annoying quote comes from Dorothy Kimura, a sort of
Edward Teller in the sex research field, who says, "The common
inference that women are kept out of the sciences by systematic or
deliberate discrimination is not based on evidence. One might as
well argue that men are kept out of nursing careers by
discrimination. Instead the process appears to be largely self-
selection." (page 249)
Apparently, Kimura is unaware that in Russia, most doctors are
women. What is so different in Russia, not noted for its
egalitarian treatment of women (other than in propaganda, of
course)? One fact is that doctors in Russia are very low paid
compared to other professions, just like nurses in the United
States. Clearly, women are completely qualified to _b_e doctors, and
they also _c_h_o_s_e _t_o _b_e doctors in large numbers in Russia. Or is the
"choice" being exercised that of men to fill high-paying,
prestigious jobs, leaving women with the scraps? Of course, there
is a vast amount of evidence that women are systematically excluded
and harassed in scientific professions--I suggest looking at
Science magazine's annual "Women in Science" issues for some "war
stories."
THE MT VOID Page 16
Around page 249, Pool notes that mathematically excellent boys tend
(according to Benbow) to focus on science and math careers, while
mathematically excellent girls are, according to Benbow, "... more
balanced" and tend to end up in many different careers. This has
been my personal experience--of the better students in my high
school, the three boys who were, arguably, the best, all became
successful in math or science, while the girls went into a variety
of careers, with varying degrees of success, and many had families
and never pursued a higher education. Since focus is an essential
element of success in any field, and women are constantly
distracted by the pressure to have kids, raise kids, etc. while
being told it is "against their nature" to do math, it should come
as no surprise that the more focused men achieve greater success
given equal ability. Pool implies that this lack of focus is
biological in nature, but the evidence for this seems weak.
Pools says the only way these kinds of issues will be resolved is
to start over with a non-sexist society--and he then claims this
has already been done on the Israeli kibbutz, with the result that,
once again, women "choose" to work with kids, avoid leadership
roles, etc. To check out his facts, I read _G_e_n_d_e_r _a_n_d _C_u_l_t_u_r_e:
_K_i_b_b_u_t_z _W_o_m_e_n _R_e_v_i_s_i_t_e_d, by Spiro, Pool's main source, with
startling results.
The kibbutz is actually a throwback to tribal living, with only two
real job categories--agriculture and child rearing/home
engineering. It should come as no surprise that kibbutz dwellers
re-created the sexual division of labor typical of primitive
agricultural societies. It also must be noted that the constant
state of warfare with the Arabs probably exacerbated the "macho"
tendency since hand-to-hand combat skills were greatly valued. We
should also note that Israel (and the kibbutz) put great emphasis
on having large Jewish families, and that everyone was learning
Hebrew, an ancient language where the word for "husband" is also
the word for "master."
The silliest example of Spiro's reasoning lies in his conclusion
that "shame" has a biological basis. In the early days on the
Kibbutz, girls and boys showered together, but eventually the girls
demanded separate showers. This led Spiro to conclude that such
differences were a triumph of nature over nurture. However, Spiro
fails to note that adults on the Kibbutz went clothed at all times,
clearly sending a message to the kids about what proper behavior
was! Similar errors abound in his book, where the all-female
nature of the child care staff is dismissed as an influence on
early childhood development! Of course, there probably are some
biological influences, but the kibbutz effort at producing a
gender-neutral environment seems poorly thought out and clearly
ineffective.
THE MT VOID Page 17
Surely this kind of example proves nothing, and gives us no
guidance. If we are forced to live in a primitive tribal setting,
hunting and gathering, or using stoop labor for agriculture, while
surrounded by enemies that are constantly on the attack, it is well
established that survival will mandate a strong sexual division of
labor, since there really are significant sex-based skill
differences that are relevant in this kind of living arrangement.
However, aside from Kibbutz dwellers, the Amish, and tribes in
remote areas, few people live like this anymore!
Of course, Pool does recognize these facts, but they don't alter
his conclusion, "I think the idea of creating sexual equality in
the identity sense is a pipe dream--if a small group of ideologues
building a society from scratch in the Middle Eastern desert
couldn't do it, how can we?" (page 259)
Although Pool seems aware of his wife's "ambitions," his focus on
"choice" and "sex differences" seems foreordained to be used by
reactionaries everywhere to justify keeping women "in their place"
and "out of the workplace." This field crys out for a modern,
objective study of just what mental skills are needed to be a
doctor, engineer, plumber, etc. and whether we should really expect
there to be any sexual division of labor in our technological
society.
It also crys out for some bold experiments that try to teach girls
math and science in a truly non-sexist environment using techniques
that are directed toward their methods of learning, some of which
Pool mentions.
Any real effort to raise children in a non-sexist environment must
include the following obvious points:
1. Equal numbers of males and females in child-rearing.
2. Active efforts to avoid contamination from television and
other similar influences.
3. Participation only of parents that have equal status jobs.
4. Active efforts to continually observe all teachers to ensure
that they are not engaging in unconscious sexual bias (see
Sadker for some examples).
5. Constant training of parents to avoid the same effects.
6. Some kind of effort to ensure that girls get cuddled as much
as male infants.
7. An effort to avoid the "channeling" effects of gender
segregated play.
THE MT VOID Page 18
8. Avoid running against deep biological needs, i.e., keep
families together, etc. The kibbutz sought to destroy the
family and replace it with a collective life; this effort
failed completely to destroy traditional family structures.
Pool is blissfully unaware (as only someone who seems to think all
"female scientists" are "feminists" can be) that being the one or
two women who "have chosen" to be engineers is a lot like being the
one or two blacks who "have chosen" to eat at the white lunch
counter--a rather dangerous act. Although "equality of results"
may well be a "pipe dream" in some occupations, we are clearly so
far from "equality of opportunity" that Pool's meanderings seem
premature (although well intended). The "choices" discussion is so
clearly tied in to current social attitudes that it is difficult to
take seriously (see above on why women don't "choose" to be
doctors). Pool gives it far more weight than it deserves.
Pool begins the book with a discussion of the hyena, where the
female is tougher physically and generally dominant. The lesson I
learned from all of this (including the Hyena) is not that women
are "different but equal" but that gender in mammals is
extraordinarily plastic, with only a knife edge between the two
sexes. Pool also reinforced my view that women and men work better
as a team on any given job (I'm not talking about raising kids,
although it's true there as well) because there are somewhat
different approaches. A diversity of views and abilities is key to
success under rapidly changing conditions, in business, science, or
war.
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
m.r.leeper@att.com
I and my public understand each other well; it does
not hear what I say, and I don't say what it wants
to hear.
-- Karl Kraus