![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chhotiiA generalization would be, for example, to observe that on average, females show poorer performance in doing math than males. It makes me cringe to admit this, but I've heard that statistics such as average SAT scores, numbers of women vs. men enrolling in engineering programs, etc., support the hypotheses that females, as a group, have worse math skills.
Prejudice is to say "oh, she's a girl, she can't do math." I will take my perfect 800 on the math section of the GRE and beat anyone who says this into a pulp.
The problem with generalizations is that they lead to prejudice. Generalizations are useful because they allow for snap judgments. Like, if someone runs in exclaiming "Quick! Somebody prove that cos(A+B) = cosAcosB - sinAsinB before the house burns down!" then you will probably find the person who looks most like a "math geek" to direct this problem to, and that stereotype is male (and scrawny, wearing glasses and a pocket protector). OK, so that example is absurd and far-fetched. But more useful generalizations might suggest who you should pull out of line to search at airport security: the young man from Saudi Arabia or the old lady from Minnesota. (But, then again, this makes it kind of suck to be a perfectly innocent young man from Saudi Arabia.)
Why do generalizations lead to prejudice? When one has to make a snap judgment, is prejudice any more effective than generalization? I think not; prejudice is too inflexible to allow one to recognize and adapt when one has encountered a math-geek chick, or a little old lady terrorist from Minnesota, or a deficit-spending Republican.
Discuss.
Prejudice is to say "oh, she's a girl, she can't do math." I will take my perfect 800 on the math section of the GRE and beat anyone who says this into a pulp.
The problem with generalizations is that they lead to prejudice. Generalizations are useful because they allow for snap judgments. Like, if someone runs in exclaiming "Quick! Somebody prove that cos(A+B) = cosAcosB - sinAsinB before the house burns down!" then you will probably find the person who looks most like a "math geek" to direct this problem to, and that stereotype is male (and scrawny, wearing glasses and a pocket protector). OK, so that example is absurd and far-fetched. But more useful generalizations might suggest who you should pull out of line to search at airport security: the young man from Saudi Arabia or the old lady from Minnesota. (But, then again, this makes it kind of suck to be a perfectly innocent young man from Saudi Arabia.)
Why do generalizations lead to prejudice? When one has to make a snap judgment, is prejudice any more effective than generalization? I think not; prejudice is too inflexible to allow one to recognize and adapt when one has encountered a math-geek chick, or a little old lady terrorist from Minnesota, or a deficit-spending Republican.
Discuss.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-23 12:24 pm (UTC)I've met some women who were truly brilliant mathematicians. I've met more men who were truly brilliant mathematicians. I am not a brilliant mathematician, although I did very well in all my math classes until I got to calculus, and my job is more or less "working with numbers". I am missing some essential "bit" that truly brilliant mathematicians seem to have.
On the "math is hard" bit: Perhaps girls are fine at math, but they have other priorities? A lot of girls -- including the really bright ones -- get their heads more into friends and boys and the social aspects of life. Boys (at least the ones who are "good at math") are stereotypically socially incompetent in comparison, and probably spend a lot less time in the intricacies of friendships and relationships. I don't think that it's entirely coincidence that my willingness to "pursue" math declined as my social life improved.
I've spoken with Dale quite a bit about the "math genius" thing, since he is, arguably, a math genius. He's pointed out to me that it's a very solitary pursuit, and not one that would lend itself to interruptions by children, partners, etc. One complaint I hear a *lot* from men who are "in the sciences" (including math) is that their female peers/students/etc. are great colleagues until they have kids and get distracted from the scientific world. (read: "can no longer work 16 hour days or drop their babies in order to work out a complicated proof or experiment or run back to the lab at 3 a.m. to check on something") Women -- at least married women with kids -- Just Don't Do That according to societal norms. Most of the female brilliant mathematicians I know don't have kids. The same is not true for their male colleagues.
BTW, for more on the larger issue (genius in academe') you really should have a look at Rebecca Goldstein's novel "The Mind-Body Problem."