Einstein's successor could be a woman

[TestSubject]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7374458

Once again drawing conclusions out of the blue.

Their work on the frontiers of physics runs counter to the claim that women might be innately less suited for math and science -- a hypothesis that was most recently, and provocatively, raised by Harvard President Lawrence Summers in January.

No it doesn't.  To run counter to his claim you have to show how these women are not an exception.  I believe his statement was in reference to why there are less women in the field.

Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm honestly considering emailling the author with the facts.

[FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR]

Actually all the hype surrounding womens vs mens intrinsic intellect is mostly based upon misperceptions and myths. Neurology is inherent. This book out lines the 12 neurotypes and touches upon their inherent abilities;

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/offer-listing/0451088921/ref=dp_olp_2//002-6980529-5753620?condition=all

[Shades of Pale]

I can't help but wonder if the rest of them look like the one in the picture.  IME so far they always have.   The reason I wonder it is because I'm trying to figure out what accounts for a female looking practically indistinguishable from a male.   It would seem to be something physical.  Is it hormonal?  Could it be part of what helps them to excel in these fields?

I'm not trying to be provocative, especially, but for a long time now it's niggled at me.  I'm not talking about dressing butch and cutting your hair like a guy and wearing Birkenstocks or suits...though that is a factor.  I'm talking about the faces themselves, the build of the body, which are very masculine.  To the point that you often don't know immediately which is which.   So many times I've been out places and seen couples...man/woman...who then turn out to be woman/woman.   I just wonder what accounts for this and what the two might have to do with each other.

[scarbo]

I can't help but wonder if the rest of them look like the one in the picture.  IME so far they always have.   The reason I wonder it is because I'm trying to figure out what accounts for a female looking practically indistinguishable from a male.   It would seem to be something physical.  Is it hormonal?  Could it be part of what helps them to excel in these fields?

I'm not trying to be provocative, especially, but for a long time now it's niggled at me.  I'm not talking about dressing butch and cutting your hair like a guy and wearing Birkenstocks or suits...though that is a factor.  I'm talking about the faces themselves, the build of the body, which are very masculine.  To the point that you often don't know immediately which is which.   So many times I've been out places and seen couples...man/woman...who then turn out to be woman/woman.   I just wonder what accounts for this and what the two might have to do with each other.

A couple of years ago, I was invited to be a piano accompanist for an all-women's volunteer chorus. The chorus advertises itself as a "lesbian" chorus, but I don't think they excluded straight women. And, of course I didn't survey each woman as to their orientation (!), so I figured in my mind that if the chorus wasn't 100% lesbian, it must have been in the high 80's to 90's. No basis for that, just a guess.

Given that background, here's my observation: there were several women in the group who could have easily passed for young men. I started to then formulate a hypothesis about "gender" that says that gender perhaps isn't necessarily a discrete characteristic. What if you're born a woman, as defined by what's between your legs only, but your other features lean masculine? And if your brain leans masculine, in that it desires other women? And vice versa: what if you're born male, as defined by the fact you have a penis, but you have effeminite features, gestures, thoughts, etc.?

So now picture gender as two bell curves which overlap each other somewhat: surely you can take a group of straight women and sort out the REALLY feminine ones from the not-so feminine ones (yet they're all straight). You can also take a group of guys and sort out the real he-man tough guys from the not-so he-man guys, yet they're all straight.

Conclusion: gender is not discrete, it's more of a continuum, but more like two overlapping bell curves instead of a linear continuum. Could be explained by mixtures of prevailing hormones, perhaps.

[Q]

The bbc did a suprisingly interesting online thing here http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml you might find interesting.

[no2fembots]

Men are basically the same:

A chess club geek and the all star quarter back express (manifest) male dominance/hierarchy/status type behaviors - albeit on what appears at first glance widely incompatible activites.  This is perhaps one of the greatest strenghts of MANkind - this ability to generalize male behaviors across an astounding array of activites and pursuits: everything from cooking to quantum mechanics.

Women form distinct sub-species:

A percentage of women are born who produce 0% testosterone.  They are exaggerated in their expression of femininity.

Some women have an andrenal gland malfunction that allows them to have more testosterone in their bodies.  They are prone to be less maternal, more career focused, enjoy more typical male pursuits, etc.

The third group is the garden variety female, as we've come to know and love.

Perhaps the foregoing "paraphrase" from the book. "Taking Sex Differences Seriously" by Steven E. Rhoads helps to explain Shades of Pale's question?

no2fembots recommends very highly the aforementioned author.   :readthis:

[FP]

Wow, so this is news? Duh. Anyone could be Einsteins successor. Man or woman. Hell aren't there feminists saying that all of Einsteins work was really done by his wife?

[TestSubject]

Actually all the hype surrounding womens vs mens intrinsic intellect is mostly based upon misperceptions and myths.

Right but what I'm getting at is he misrepresented what Summers said.

[FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR]

Right but what I'm getting at is he misrepresented what Summers said.

I agree. I was facetiously trying to interject a nudge to everyone about Dr. Youngs findings at your expense (Ive been trying to get everyone to read the recommended book for over a year now  :oops:  hehe). For that I apologize.  :mrgreen:

[Graboid]

Some women have an andrenal gland malfunction that allows them to have more testosterone in their bodies.  They are prone to be less maternal, more career focused, enjoy more typical male pursuits, etc.

There is definitely something about female scientists that makes them differ from most other women. I think it has to be linked to what you mentioned above - these women must surely have higher levels of testosterone than the vast majority of other women (although I doubt it is that simple - see below).

Obviously it would be a bit difficult to do a study to determine this, but like you say, sometimes you can tell they have higher testosterone just by looking at them. For instance, just take a look at the pictures of some of the most famous, high achieving female scientists in history. Look at their faces; they look a great deal more masculine than most women:

Marie Curie (Nobel winning physicist):

http://wid.tamu.edu/curie.gif

Rosalind Franklin (Helped determine the structure of DNA):

http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/images/19cbio.jpg

Barbara McClintock (Won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1983)

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/LL/B/B/P/W/_/llbbpw.jpg

Emmy Noether (Famous Mathematician):

http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/~liesen/Research/EmmyNoether.gif

Dorothy Hodgkin (Nobel laureate and a pioneer of X-ray crystallography):

http://www.wsip.com.pl/serwisy/czaschem/c001crow.jpg

There are plenty more pictures of notable female scientists on this page:

http://wwwimp.leidenuniv.nl/~schmidt/womenimg.html

The trend is definitely there. Taking this line of thought to its logical conclusion, it would appear that what is necessary to be successful in science is less about being male or female than it is related to testosterone levels (this idea carries the obvious implication that as testosterone is the 'male' hormone, the number of top-drawer male scientists will dwarf the number of females in that category). With brain science still very much in its infancy, we can only specualte about about the exact nature of the trend. It is not enough to say that achievement is science is about having high levels of testosterone, as athletes and many types of criminals are noted for having much higher than normal levels of the hormone, yet these groups are not particularly noted for their contributions to science.  

Just my little theory - if anyone can add to this (or discredit it), please chip in.  

[PaulGuelph]

The feminasties were looking for an enemy to justify all the hatred, male-bashing and the billions of dollars spent furthuring female supremacy.  It has been a long and difficult search, combing all cities of America.  

Eureka!!!  It is this little Harvard Professor.  His subtle dissagreement with fem dogma has resulted in the oppression of women throughout the western world.  It turns out that he was the one all along!!  Unknown to civilised society, he was cultivating counter-revolutionary thinking in our very mids, like a sort of Dr. Goldfinger,  menacing our new cultural norms.  Who knows the danger that he posed to a clean-thinking nation of 300 million?

[TestSubject]

Right but what I'm getting at is he misrepresented what Summers said.

I agree. I was facetiously trying to interject a nudge to everyone about Dr. Youngs findings at your expense (Ive been trying to get everyone to read the recommended book for over a year now  :oops:  hehe). For that I apologize.  :mrgreen:

Ah!  Got it.  No harm done.

[Quasimodo]

The current issue of Scientific American has a fascinating article on inherent gender differences. Some of the differences such as the way men and women remember emotionally traumatic events is a bit surprising. Some, like the multi-tasking female and the sharply focused male, are common knowledge. (One would expect a primitive female to do many tasks and watch the younguns; and a primitive male hunter who lost focus would be a dead hunter.) It's a fascinating read.

PS to no2fembots: all women have some testosterone. The women on the high end have about as much as 20%(?) of men on the low end.