Libertarian Librarian

Remember back in March when I rambled quite a bit about the flap over Larry Summers', President of Harvard University, comments on innate differences between men and women? Specifically, Summers suggested that there are likely to be more men at the extreme end of the bell curve when it comes to science and math, which, at least in part, explains the disparity in numbers between male and female faculty at elite research institutions like Harvard. There was much fuss and bother and quite a bit of hew and cry by academia, and this was subsequently taken up by the journalists and talking heads.

In short, the conclusion of the Ivory Tower was that Summers was either ignorant or a sexist pig. Perhaps both. Frankly, I didn't-- still don't-- get it. He never said men were more intelligent than women. He never said women were incapable of science or math excellence, even genius, only that biology seemed to dictate that more men would be found at the extremes of these areas. Which also suggests that there are a more men completely incapable of understanding math and science than women. But the fact that women are less likely to be morons doesn't play well, and so is ignored.

Anyway, found this fascinating article off of one of Andrew Sullivan's posts. To use an industry term, it is dead-on balls accurate. And completely supports what Summers said. It is a bit long, but the whole thing, to me at least, is interesting, well-reasoned, supported by fact, and-- I would think-- nearly impossible to refute. Yet the academy, and many on the far left, will have none of it. Why the concept that different groups might be different is so reprehensible to them is beyond me.

Key passage:

Seen from one perspective, this pattern demonstrates what should be obvious: there is nothing inherent in being a woman that precludes high math ability. But there remains a distributional difference in male and female characteristics that leads to a larger number of men with high visuospatial skills. The difference has an evolutionary rationale, a physiological basis, and a direct correlation with math scores.

But since it flies in the face of acceptable political correctness, it must be crap. I also find it interesting that evolution helps explain the differences:

Evolutionary biologists have some theories that feed into an explanation for the disparity. In primitive societies, men did the hunting, which often took them far from home. Males with the ability to recognize landscapes from different orientations and thereby find their way back had a survival advantage. Men who could process trajectories in three dimensions—the trajectory, say, of a spear thrown at an edible mammal—also had a survival advantage.8 Women did the gathering. Those who could distinguish among complex arrays of vegetation, remembering which were the poisonous plants and which the nourishing ones, also had a survival advantage. Thus the logic for explaining why men should have developed elevated three-dimensional visuospatial skills and women an elevated ability to remember objects and their relative locations—differences that show up in specialized tests today.9

Yet those who are up in arms defending evolution against Intelligent Design seem to have no difficulty dismissing this relationship since it does not fit their firmly held preconceptions.

Read the whole thing. It's long, but it is well-written and never dull. Case in point-- this lovely little zinger:

But this is just one more of the ways in which science is demonstrating that men and women are really and truly different, a fact so obvious that only intellectuals could ever have thought otherwise.

To which I can only say, heh.

UPDATE: I forgot to include my favorite quote from the article:

Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.

This is the antithesis of what intellectual curiousity is all about. Dismissing results because we don't like their conclusions is anti-intellectual and pathetic. It's the Scope's monkey trial all over again, only this time, most of the academics are on the side of the creationists. The irony is heavey. And rather sad. The solution is rather simple... but in today's academic and political environment, might be hard to achieve:

Thus my modest recommendation, requiring no change in laws or regulations, just a little more gumption. Let us start talking about group differences openly—all sorts of group differences, from the visuospatial skills of men and women to the vivaciousness of Italians and Scots. Let us talk about the nature of the manly versus the womanly virtues. About differences between Russians and Chinese that might affect their adoption of capitalism. About differences between Arabs and Europeans that might affect the assimilation of Arab immigrants into European democracies. About differences between the poor and non-poor that could inform policy for reducing poverty.

Open conversation and debate. What a novel concept. We should try it-- you never know it might actually catch on.

Labels: Politics