tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post5299473964519436578..comments2023-08-08T00:37:45.098-07:00Comments on A Philosophy Job Market Blog: Listen to the Band!Pseudonymous Grad Studenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00627480292942427387noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-75597728023940850122008-02-02T01:55:00.000-08:002008-02-02T01:55:00.000-08:00I ran across this article, and it (at the very bot...I ran across <A HREF="http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/01/2008013101c?pg=dji" REL="nofollow">this article</A>, and it (at the very bottom) provides some empirical evidence that women may not appear on paper to be as strong of candidates as men because of differences in recommendation letter writing practices. That is, men tend to receive more laudatory praise than women, and as a result they may appear to be better candidates to graduate admission committees or job search committees based on the recommendation differences even if there are no significant differences in the candidates. This would be particularly problematic if it is true, as it is purported to be, that recommendation letters play such an important role in the job search.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-49324904548895373722008-01-30T04:48:00.000-08:002008-01-30T04:48:00.000-08:00Well, all I have to say is that Linda Alcoff, Susa...Well, all I have to say is that Linda Alcoff, Susan Babbitt, and Sally Haslanger hold this same dinosaur 18th-century view that you're so easily dismissive of. It's not the majority view, but those three are clearly not parrots of 18th-century dogma. See <A HREF="http://alcoff.com/content/chap6metags.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, for example. It's amazing that people who have little familiarity with the state of play in feminist theory can so glibly draw conclusions about what's outdated in feminism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-6000290857662172632008-01-27T16:34:00.000-08:002008-01-27T16:34:00.000-08:00536 serves as a great example for how far we've co...536 serves as a great example for how far we've come. There are very few people left who think like him.<BR/>He also serves as a great example of how far we still have to go. There are still people like that out there and there are probably quite a number of more benign cases. Beware! <BR/><BR/>I can't decide whether to feel sorry for 5:36s wife or whether to think she's even more of a moron than her husband. I guess the two need not be incompatible. In any case: 5:36, I'd hold on to her as well as you can. There aren't many like her left. She probably washes your laundry and cooks all your meals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-45124412019011843052008-01-27T15:01:00.000-08:002008-01-27T15:01:00.000-08:00anonymous 536,You're so off, it's kinda endearing....anonymous 536,<BR/><BR/>You're so off, it's kinda endearing. I'd love to have a beer with you. It would be a bit like having had a beer with the last dinosaur.<BR/><BR/>I won't argue with you. We want to keep you just like you are: a pure specimen of 18th century mentality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-66145793296931109852008-01-27T05:36:00.000-08:002008-01-27T05:36:00.000-08:00Furthermore, I find these "women just aren't inter...<I>Furthermore, I find these "women just aren't interested in philosophy, for biological reasons" to be dubious, too. For one thing, women in my intro classes do seem interested in it. Most of them just don't seem to pursue it, for some reason.</I><BR/><BR/>By "interested in philosophy", I didn't mean having any interest in the subject. I mean the kind of interest that would lead one to pursue it as a career, other considerations be damned. I don't doubt that sexism (and its effects, both indirect and direct) are partly responsible for this. My point is that it's possible there are biological differences that partly explain it as well.<BR/><BR/><I>only men propose these kinds of explanations.</I><BR/><BR/>Not so. Maybe men propose them more often, but I know several women who are more likely to say this kind of thing than many of the men I know. In fact, I'm much more open to sexism-related explanations than my wife is.<BR/><BR/>Race is a different matter, because there seems to be no remotely plausible account of why biology would make black people, say, less interested in philosophy. There are notable biological differences between men and women, even if you only acknowledge just reproductive organs. The womb plausibly makes a difference in terms of how men and women perceive themselves and their relationship with other people, and I wouldn't be too surprised (although I wouldn't claim to be remotely sure) if it turns out that there is some biological difference that partially explains at least some of this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-3233331282289505282008-01-27T05:02:00.000-08:002008-01-27T05:02:00.000-08:00ttprof, I like your question (1). That rings true ...ttprof, I like your question (1). That rings true to me, too. Hmmm.<BR/><BR/>Here's a somewhat depressing suggestion. The overt examples of sexism in our own culture seem 'normal' to us because we are so used to them -- they fade into the background, so to speak. But in a strange place they (different kinds of examples) are salient and fresh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-29897505513254490302008-01-26T15:12:00.000-08:002008-01-26T15:12:00.000-08:00709, your theory is a non-starter, sorry. The US a...709, your theory is a non-starter, sorry. <BR/><BR/>The US and Sweden do about the same on economic equality. (US score: 0.738; Sweden score: 0.761) What really drags the US down is political empowerment (US score: 0.102; Sweden score: 0.525).<BR/><BR/>Now, we're really off topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-76721692827782437282008-01-26T13:40:00.000-08:002008-01-26T13:40:00.000-08:00anonymous 7:09,1.Your point (that many other peopl...anonymous 7:09,<BR/><BR/>1.Your point (that many other people have mad) about having lived in two cultures and finding the one that isn't your own more sexist is interesting. This seems to be a very wide spread phenomenon. I know a lot of americans who have gone to the UK and find the UK more sexist and I know a lot of Brits who have moved to the US and find the US more sexist. I wonder what explains this phenomenon. <BR/><BR/>2. Your theory predicts that France does well on the wef ranking. But it does a lot worse than the US. Do you have an explanation for that? (France has one of the best parental leave programs in the world, so they're doing better than the US on that as well as economic equality.) Still they really fuck up on the gender equality.<BR/><BR/>3. If we're going to judge sexism based on the people we know, all I can say is that you seem to know different European women than I do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-61796402140812887012008-01-26T07:53:00.000-08:002008-01-26T07:53:00.000-08:007:09 Here.BBG,Yes, as a matter of fact, I did look...7:09 Here.<BR/><BR/>BBG,<BR/><BR/>Yes, as a matter of fact, I did look at it. And it SPECIFICALLY says that they look at output variables, not input variables "like culture". If you dont think that the right-wing laissez-faire political/economic climate of the US amplifies the output effects of a sexist culture on things like income, access to healthcare, access to political office, etc. than I dont know what to tell you.<BR/>Everyone has equal access to healthcare in sweden by definition. And access to political office in the US is MUCH more expensive than in most european countries, so income and wealth disparities get amplified into that too.<BR/><BR/><BR/> And no, I dont think the WEF people are stupid. I think they are specifically and self-avowadly measuring something different that what you are talking about. And they take the trouble to explain the difference--actually.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You say: "I was trying to get a conversation going about what we can learn from the sciences and what we can learn from other parts of the world." But you dont seem to want to to follow through on it.<BR/><BR/>You want to claim (or admit to) three things:<BR/><BR/>1. Sweden has a less sexist culture than the US.<BR/>2. Sexism is the overwhelming cause of the gender disparity in US philosophy departments.<BR/>3. There is as much gender disparity in Swedish Philosophy departments as there is here.<BR/><BR/>But absent weird and very ad hoc hypotheses, these three claims are incompatible with each other--and you dont seem to want to face up to that.<BR/><BR/>Since I inclined to believe 2 (and 3 seems to be a fact), I was looking for a way to challenge 1. And I am inclined to doubt 1, because I have lived in the US, and in two of the countries that rank much higher on the report, and I can tell you from my experience that both of these countries have a markedly higher degree of sexism in academia. And women in these countries have told me that they find the US to be more open.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-61176708661213198132008-01-26T07:30:00.000-08:002008-01-26T07:30:00.000-08:00Okay, I did a little homework.I looked in the Leit...Okay, I did a little homework.<BR/><BR/>I looked in the Leiter ranked departments and found seven or eight male Scandinavian philosophers, and maybe two (but maybe one) female ones, depending on exactly what counts as Scandinavian.<BR/><BR/>This is a small sample size, and furthermore my methodology is not exactly infallible. (It’s not always possible to tell from web pages whether a person was born or educated in Scandinavia.) But the information certainly doesn’t support the idea that the brain drain in philosophy from Scandinavia to the US is predominantly female. So it casts doubt on the idea that the brain drain explains (!) the very small F/M ratio in Scandinavian philosophy.<BR/><BR/><BR/>On opacity of the hiring process:<BR/>This is an interesting issue whether or not it is responsible for sex inequality. Just off hand, it seems to me that Swedish (I don't know about how hiring works in the rest of Scand.) hiring is a lot more transparent in certain ways and at certain points than ours, but perhaps less so at other points.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-75843802557008103742008-01-26T05:06:00.000-08:002008-01-26T05:06:00.000-08:00BB Girl,Don't mean to offend you but I think you s...BB Girl,<BR/><BR/><I>Don't mean to offend you but I think you should get into the habit of doing some internet searches before you state things so boldly.</I><BR/><BR/>You don't offend me, don't worry, I appreciate it. And likewise, I hope I will not offend you if I ask you please to read what I actually write. In that sentence above you are saying that I 'boldly' stated that there are more Scandinavian men than women in US philosophy. But what I wrote was:<BR/><BR/>"there don't seem to me to be a lot of Scandinavian women philosophers in the United States."<BR/><BR/>As you say, you disagree, but you add that you aren't going to count. I think that if you are right, that there is a greater female brain drain from Scandinavia to the US in philosophy, that would be an interesting element of an explanation. I won't count every Scandinavian-American philosopher, but I'll look over Leiter-ranked ones and see what I can find.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-50127651168907365162008-01-26T03:20:00.000-08:002008-01-26T03:20:00.000-08:00In response to anonymous 7:09 PMThis is getting ri...In response to anonymous 7:09 PM<BR/><BR/>This is getting ridiculous. I take it you haven't looked at the data to which I linked. Don't you think the world economic forum is sophisticated enough to take social/political/and especially economic inequality into account? Boy you must think they're really dumb.<BR/><BR/>I was trying to get a conversation going about what we can learn from the sciences and what we can learn from other parts of the world. But there seem to be too many people on this blog who are just interested in keeping the myth alive that the US is particularly progressive what gender issues are concerned. There's no doubt, the US is really good in some respects. But there's a long way to go (as I thought most of us agree). <BR/><BR/>I'm going to opt out of this discussion now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-69480176755512176992008-01-25T21:08:00.000-08:002008-01-25T21:08:00.000-08:00Re: the original post--Thank you! This is so true....Re: the original post--<BR/>Thank you! This is so true. I, like one of the other posters, have grad school in philosophy to thank for my most real experiences with sexism/gender bias. I like the phrasing that this stuff is immune to introspection. It is very hard to say these things without coming across like you're calling people Bad, and so in my experience people get very defensive (as they don't see themselves as Bad). I once heard from an advisor, after trying to be quite honest about my experience, "Well, you're the first person who has told me that," as though that weren't enough to take seriously. Implicit in that response was an automatic denial of any potential role. <BR/>Someone asked if women can be sexist, even against women--yes! Later in the same conversation with my advisor I was told (as if I didn't know!) that most of the (very few) female faculty members in our department would be unsympathetic to my concerns. Again, that somehow was supposed to minimize or illegitimate my concern. Just because they've made a career by trying to zip their pants from the other side, they now fight for the traditional team.<BR/>I think a good part of the reason philosophy continues to be dominated by men, and the reason we have to ask whether men are somehow more apt in philosophy, is a methodological reason. It's not about the subject matter of philosophy, or the kind of thought or intelligence it takes, but rather the way it progresses , both in writing and in conversation. In my experience, the biggest hurdle is the aggressiveness that seems to be required in order to be considered a viable philosopher, and I think that, traditionally and sociologically, is a trait that has been more encouraged in males and discouraged in females. In the epic conversation I've referred to, I suggested as much, and was told, "That's the way philosophy has always been done." Need I point out that this is precisely the problem?<BR/>There is a problem in philosophy, and I think Female Grad is right that a huge part of it is--ironically, given philosophy's aims--an immunity to introspection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-2486797727674701442008-01-25T19:30:00.000-08:002008-01-25T19:30:00.000-08:00Anon 6:23 pm:(Beautifulbodyboy and Prof J., I real...Anon 6:23 pm:<BR/><BR/><I>(Beautifulbodyboy and Prof J., I realize you mean well. But why are you saying that someone’s explanation is not an explanation if you quite obviously haven’t even bothered to check whether what they say may be based on facts that makes what they say an explanation</I><BR/><BR/>I think you're confused. What B.B. Girl offered was <B>not</B> an explanation. Additional facts make it a potential explanation, but those additional facts weren't offered.<BR/><BR/><I>In this particular case, you would just have had to google: braindrain, europe, US, women.</I><BR/><BR/>Okay, I just did that. I don't see anything relevant on the first page of Googlehits.<BR/>Why don't you tell us what you found when you Googled those terms together.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>TTassprof and Prof J, I don’t think it helps our discussion if we assume (as you seem to) that we (the people in the US) are leading the world on gender issues – especially given the evidence to the contrary.)</I><BR/><BR/>That is a really bizarre thing for you to say. Here is what I actually wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Suppose (as I am inclined to suppose) that sexism in Scandinavian culture is significantly less serious than it is in ours;"<BR/><BR/>Your conclusion is that I am assuming that the US is leading the world on gender issues??<BR/>I'm kind of hoping right now that you don't do history of philosophy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-882646513247019932008-01-25T19:09:00.000-08:002008-01-25T19:09:00.000-08:00BBG and BBB,I think the problem is the idea that t...BBG and BBB,<BR/><BR/>I think the problem is the idea that there is more sexism in the US is simply wrong. I dont know scandinavia in particular, but there is plenty of it in the UK and in other parts of europe--at least as much in the US--in the academy and elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>The primary evidence cited that the US is more sexist is the World Economic Forum ranking. But this, I would venture to guess, simply reflects the fact that the US is more economically right-wing than all these other countries, and therefore has far more social/political/and especially economic inequality in general than any other developed country in the world. So, "a little sexism goes a long way" in creating more measurable inequality.<BR/><BR/>Put crudely--it may be just as hard to become a CEO in sweden if you are a woman as it is in the US, but since the CEO/secretary pay ratio in the US is much higher than it is in sweden, that same degree of sexism creates more income ineqaulity for the US women.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-32687325295839324282008-01-25T18:58:00.000-08:002008-01-25T18:58:00.000-08:00In response to Prof J.In repsonse to 1: The expla...In response to Prof J.<BR/><BR/>In repsonse to 1: The explanations for female PhDs being more likely to cross the Atlantic are very speculative. The one that seems to have the biggest following is this: <BR/><BR/>a. It's more unusual for women to do PhDs than men.<BR/>b. This may imply that women who do PhDs tend to have a more adventurous personality.<BR/>c. Possibly, more adventurous people tend to be more likely to pack their bags and go to another country.<BR/><BR/>It's obviously very easy to question a., b., and c. and especially the relation between them. If there is any truth to a., b., and c., they may explain the fact that women are overproportionally part of the eurobraindrain.<BR/><BR/>I can think of as many scandinavian women in philosophy in the US as scandinavian men. I'm not going to look into the numbers. Don't mean to offend you but I think you should get into the habit of doing some internet searches before you state things so boldly. <BR/><BR/>In response to 2: 3&4 in my last post were supposed to point to possible other explanations. <BR/>I shouldn't have said that the old boys network is more powerful in science than in philosophy. I should have said that it may be more effective for the reasons I stated in my last point and will state again in the following. <BR/><BR/>We have evidence that women are much more successful cracking the glass ceiling in many sciences than in philosophy. What are the reasons? <BR/>Sexist atmosphere alone can't be one of them if the atmosphere in sciences is as sexist as in philosophy (I'm assuming this is true. Please don't ask me for evidence.) I think higher degree of opaqueness in philosophy that allows sexism and old boys network to have it's full effect may be a good explanation. That was my 3&4 from my last post put in other words. <BR/><BR/>Any suggestions, explanations for the evidence we have?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-90955146066200630842008-01-25T18:23:00.000-08:002008-01-25T18:23:00.000-08:00To second a previous post, I believe it would be g...To second a previous post, I believe it would be good if the discussion about women and philosophy would be held more often in terms of fishing for excellence from a larger pool rather than in terms of justice. No doubt, it's unjust that women have a harder time succeeding in philosophy. (I'm going to assume that it is harder for women to succeed in philosophy and so ignore the various people who are still denying this. I'm kinda bored arguing with them.) Sadly arguments from injustice typically don't bring about much effect. This likely to be especially true if no one thinks they're being sexist, which is the case at a stage in which sexism is mostly of the unintentional kind. <BR/><BR/>I also believe it would be good to think more about point 4 in beautifulbrainsgirl's last post. Are there ways to make the job allocation more gender blind? Are there ways to make the paper reviewing process more blind in our times of webpages and internet? If there are, there are reasons to believe that this would be very beneficial to the success of female philosophers.<BR/>(Beautifulbodyboy and Prof J., I realize you mean well. But why are you saying that someone’s explanation is not an explanation if you quite obviously haven’t even bothered to check whether what they say may be based on facts that makes what they say an explanation? In this particular case, you would just have had to google: braindrain, europe, US, women. TTassprof and Prof J, I don’t think it helps our discussion if we assume (as you seem to) that we (the people in the US) are leading the world on gender issues – especially given the evidence to the contrary.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-3415334015560022252008-01-25T18:08:00.000-08:002008-01-25T18:08:00.000-08:00B.B. Girl:Well, let's see.1. I'll take your word f...B.B. Girl:<BR/><BR/>Well, let's see.<BR/><BR/>1. I'll take your word for it that the European brain drain is well-documented. Assuming that is in fact the reason for the paucity of women in Scandinavian philosophy, it isn't a side track to explain why; it's the main track. So I'd really like to know. But I doubt that's the reason, because there don't seem to me to be a lot of Scandinavian women philosophers in the United States. I can think of one, but I can think of quite a few Scandinavian male philosophers in the US.<BR/><BR/>2. Fine, necessary but not sufficient. But what is the missing sufficient condition? That's what I'm looking for. The explanation for the sex imbalance in Scandinavian philosophy.<BR/><BR/>3. Yes, that's possible. And we've done a lot to combat that problem here.<BR/>If the proportion of female graduate students in Scandinavian philosophy is high, that would suggest that the hiring bias you mention is the effective ingredient.<BR/><BR/>4. I don't think the old boys network <I>is</I> more powerful in philosophy than in science. You might be underestimating the power of the science boys' network.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Hmm, we both asked for new threads, and now that they've arrived we are among the last hanging around in this one!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-75546625934826763802008-01-25T15:54:00.000-08:002008-01-25T15:54:00.000-08:00beautifulbrainsgirl -there's some potential there....beautifulbrainsgirl -<BR/><BR/>there's some potential there. think about how interesting blind auditions could be. There is a big curtain between you and the SC. you walk up, sit down, they ask you questions, and your voice is passed through electronic equipment so that everyone has exactly the same middle register, unidentifiable voice. and sometimes, we could throw a senior level prof who is a bigshot in the field, to see if she or he gets the same treatment or if the search committees could tell the difference. <BR/><BR/>I really don't know what would happen if we starting quality-checking SCs with great people using blind auditions. I think lots of bluffs would be called.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-49855108633973811202008-01-25T13:53:00.000-08:002008-01-25T13:53:00.000-08:00In response to prof. j and beautifulbodyboy1. It's...In response to prof. j and beautifulbodyboy<BR/><BR/>1. It's welldocummented that the EuroBrainDrain is overproportionally female. People who are go from Europe to the US for PhDs and stay are overproportionally female. Reasons for this? There are speculations. I won't side-track the discussion even more.<BR/><BR/>2. the low F/M ratio in a relatively non-sexist atmosphere, probably shows that achieving a relatively non-sexist atmosphere may be necessary but is not sufficient. Or if it is sufficient it will take a long time to reap fruits.<BR/><BR/>3. The factors such as, all the older profs being male and hiring younger alter-egos, are still in place. (This factor is probably more powerful in any system in which the hiring process is more opaque than in the US. The US hiring process may not be good, but it's probably the best that's tried and tested.)<BR/><BR/>4. One of the really interesting questions is (I think) this: Why does old boys network seem to be more powerful in philosophy than in most sciences? One reason for this may be that the criteria for judging what is good philosophy are much more opaque in philosophy than in science. This will allow negative biases to enter into judgments about what is good philosophy much more strongly.<BR/>What can be done against this. I doubt that there's much to do by way of making the criteria for judging what is good philosophy less opaque. But I suspect that making hiring processes/ paper reviewing processes etc. more strictly blind will be beneficial to the success of female philosophers. <BR/>Of course, there are limits to how blind one can make these things. Unfortunately we can't do what orchestras started doing a couple of decades ago, i.e. having blind auditions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-35873483285156688802008-01-25T08:29:00.000-08:002008-01-25T08:29:00.000-08:00anon 7:07,Look, people have come on this blog and ...anon 7:07,<BR/><BR/>Look, people <I>have</I> come on this blog and tried to argue that women are less analytical, less intelligent, and less able to do philosophy than men. I invite you to swim through the previous three threads, where you will see all kinds of people spewing this BS. I have been mostly addressing people who hold this view. <BR/><BR/>The fact that I have been attacking your #2 in particular does not mean that I didn't realize that it was not entailed by the weaker claim #1. I was actually talking about actual people who actually make the claim expressed by #2. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I find these "women just aren't interested in philosophy, for biological reasons" to be dubious, too. For one thing, women in my intro classes do seem interested in it. Most of them just don't seem to pursue it, for some reason. <BR/><BR/>For another thing, a lot of women have come on this blog to say that although they are interested in it, they have nevertheless struggled with whether or not to pursue it, and that these struggles are because of sexism. Granted, because this is a philosophy blog, the women who just weren't interested in philosophy in the first place aren't going to show up and tell us. But I think it's significant that <I>every single woman</I> who has commented here has had experiences with sexism, along with every female philosopher I know, that they all seem to have problems with it, and that only men propose these kinds of explanations.<BR/><BR/>I have a hypothesis about why people would propose these explanations. I think lots of male philosophers are not really sexists, and would feel bad if there was really so much sexism in philosophy, and that sexism was chasing women out. It wouldn't be so bad, however, if women just weren't interested in it in the first place, or simply couldn't hack it. So they cook up a cock-and-bull story about how that's probably it; women just don't like it as much, or they aren't good at it.<BR/><BR/>Nevermind that some do like it; nevermind that some are good at it; nevermind that they all seem to tell the same stories about sexism; nevermind that ethnic minorities are under-represented in philosophy, too. I think that last fact bears emphasizing: <B>there are very few black people, asians, latinos/latinas, and native americans who choose to study philosophy.</B> Perhaps there is a credible sociobiological explanation for the fact that white males, and only white males, are interested in philosophy. No, there isn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-88753557199299117962008-01-25T07:42:00.000-08:002008-01-25T07:42:00.000-08:00Yeah, 7:07...tell it!Unfortunately, it seems that ...Yeah, 7:07...tell it!<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, it seems that some/many bloggers here cannot accept your proposition (1), which is a claim that goes against every fiber of their being. So instead of a reasoned argument against such a claim, they resort to attacking proposition (2).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-52156455699301221862008-01-25T07:13:00.000-08:002008-01-25T07:13:00.000-08:00I was right about this thread reaching 100. I pred...I was right about this thread reaching 100. I predict 150 by tomorrow evening, and then a slow down. Let's see.<BR/><BR/>Oh, by the way, don't forget to write your dissertation. You want a job don't you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-10555647314649393572008-01-25T07:07:00.000-08:002008-01-25T07:07:00.000-08:00I think the fact that people are still proposing b...<I>I think the fact that people are still proposing biological explanations for the fact that women and minorities are underrepresented in philosophy is sickening. Shut up. There is no evidence that there is any tendency for women or minorities to be less mentally able than white males. If you think the jury is still out on this one, I suggest you go back to the 18th century where you belong.</I><BR/><BR/>Apparently you don't seem to understand the claim that's being made. The following two claims are not equivalent:<BR/><BR/>1. Part of the explanation why group X underrepresented in philosophy is biological.<BR/>2. Group X is less mentally able than groups that are not underrepresented in philosophy.<BR/><BR/>For one thing, biological explanations aren't all about mental ability. Some of them are about what sort of things different people might be interested in.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, the claim that some people have made about women (in particular the one that Larry Summers said needs to be investigated to see whether it's true) is that men are more concentrated at both extremes of the bell curve when it comes to a certain very particular set of cognitive abilities. It's not about general intelligence (as if that could be measured), and it's not about men as a whole being better than women as a whole or about men on average being better than women on average. (If men are more concentrated on both ends, then the average will be about the same for both men and women.)<BR/><BR/>Now I have no idea what the evidence is supposed to be for these claims or if there's any merit to them. I haven't been motivated to explore it too much. I'm kind of focused on my own project, one that I think is at least as important in its practical consequences. But I don't think it's intellectually honest to throw it into the category of discredited theories by pretending it's a different claim that really has been discredited in a very obvious way. As far as I know, these more recent questions haven't been all that investigated, and I'm sure part of the reason is because of the mindset found in what I quoted above (something exhibited by the Harvard faculty when they condemned Larry Summers for asking for such investigation for the sake of figuring out how better to correct this underrepresentation). The claim that men are mentally more able than women is just as close to the hypothesis Larry Summers wanted investigated as the claim that men are mentally less able than women (because of the lower end).<BR/><BR/>Good philosophy requires understanding the claim your opponent is making, and that is certainly not being done in this discussion. Even if all such claims are false and demonstrably so, it's worth distinguishing them from ones that are much more obviously false.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-9685181149729640542008-01-25T06:53:00.000-08:002008-01-25T06:53:00.000-08:00calls for definitions are the last resort of philo...<I>calls for definitions are the last resort of philosophical scoundrels</I><BR/><BR/>Nice. So much of analytic philosophy is just scoundrels engaging in their last resort.<BR/><BR/>It's true that dictionaries aren't always a good guide when engaging in conceptual analysis (just look at the unconscionable OED entry on 'racism'). Nevertheless, calls for definitions in philosophy are usually just an attempt to make a proper distinction and then to apply it by clearing up confusions over ambiguities in language. That's hardly the last resort of a scoundrel. It's one of the most important things philosophers do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com