Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

While it's clear that [in the interests of free inquiry, etc.] he should not become unemployed as a result of his boneheadedness, it is not clear that he should remain president of a university, unless that boneheadedness represents the university as a whole. [insert snarky comment about Harvard here, because I really can't be bothered]

(caught by the QC filter... this will come in 3 parts...)

Long 3 sentences David... So you have the fourth hypothesis, which is "it's structural". Arnold Kling has a fifth hypothesis, which is that men generally get into a "whose is bigger" dynamic that dominates the agenda of everything. And yeah, I agree with Arnold that this is a pretty lousy mentality. And to bring one of Summers' hypotheses into this, there is a wide variance of this kind of behavior among males that doesn't coincide with the wide variance in science and math abilities. Meaning, there are uber-jerks in every strata.

With Summers' hypotheses, there are pretty obvious t-e-s-t-s (was that the filter word?) we could apply. For the variance in ability argument, we could collect data and see if it is indeed true that the bell curve is flatter and more drawn out for men than women. "Men have a longer tail" unifies a couple popular memes. Haha. Becker is a Nobel Laureate, and I know you have to be a little extra careful in critcizing such people. For example, if I suggest that banning CFCs might have had problematic consequences for the Space Shuttle Columbia (it did), immediately it calls into question my respect for science done by Rowland and Cicerone, whom I had as profs for a class at UC Irvine back in the day. They are Nobel Laureates like Becker. To call Becker's hypothesis odd is pretty bold considering he has a Nobel Prize and you don't. You may be right, but it's definitely bold ;-).

But with the structural hypothesis, it seems to me that if you're going to posit that structure accounts for the level of representation of men and women, you need some way to t-e-s-t (yes, we can say the fuck word, but not t-e-s-t -- just pulling David's chain) this. A counterexample. What would be a structure of science that would ensure that the representation more consistent with the general population (a little more than 50% women)?

I am an unimportant assistant professor at Harvard University, and I want to say that Lawrence Summers at the conference has also represented my opinions about the issues - much like the opinions of hundreds of people at Harvard (Steve Pinker, for example). It's not surprising that afterwards, he has tried to relativize his remarks. It's simply because some people are getting completely wild not just when someone says such things - but even every time they find out that someone *thinks* in the same way as Lawrence Summers at the conference. These "politically correct" people suffer from the same kind of disease as the true Christian believers in the 15th century who could not have accepted that the Earth was not the center of the Universe - because they believed that this would destroy the functioning of the society or maybe even the Universe, for that matter. In the same way, the "politically correct" people today go wild when they see a suggestion that the women and the men could statistically have dispositions for different things. They believe that the world breaks down if the difference between males and females is more than the "obvious" one. It's their belief. As every religion, it's OK for them to hold this belief as long as they don't want to impose this religion on other people.

"In the transcript Summers makes the odd argument (attributed to Gary Becker) that if discrimination were pervasive, an institution that wasn't discriminatory should be able to gather up a whole bunch of worthy hires quite cheaply."

Right - the real reason Larry's got to go is because he used pseudoscientific economic mumbo jumbo to try to argue that discrimination doesn't exist. My prediction: Summers will be over before the first day of spring.

The argument cited is a well-known exemplar of a particular genre - find a mathematical or scientific "justification" for the status quo, when people object, beat them over the head with "It's SCIENCE, you wouldn't be arguing with SCIENCE, would you? (this happens a lot e.g. with Libertarianism).

It's one reason many liberals can go down an anti-science intellectual path, as a way of countering the above sort of argument.

It's certainly true that one can find very smart people who hold such ideas, because they are appealing. But one can find equally smart people who debunk them.

At Harvard, it seems that some kinds of sexism are okay:

http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/02/sexism-harvard-likes.html

Interesting and (mostly) reasonable discussion so far.

For what it's worth, I am a Ph.D. social scientist (Stanford, sorry)

I think the baseball comparison is weak: there was once a general agreement not to hire black ball-players, which, once cracked, cracked wide. I know first-hand that universities bend over backwards to hire/admit members of `under-represented' groups.

Whether any of the hypotheses Summers (or Gary Becker) advances is true or not is independent of whether they are offensive, justify the status quo, or get him fired. Reality is what it is.

I'd like to add a fourth hypothesis that Summers was in the neighborhood of, but perhaps too interested in being provocative to state directly: when a pair of smart people have kids, and one of them has to stay home (and work very long hours,btw) for a few years, mom may be the stronger candidate, possibly even for biological reasons, tho ones having nothing to do with mathematical talent. A big symmetry breaker.
And another bonus hypothesis: in the nature of the mating game, there is more pressure on guys to achieve great things--to show off. There is less pay-off for women. Offensive? Maybe. True? Maybe.

Harvard comes off looking like a fool on this, and not primarily because of Summers' remarks.

In science we need to be able to tes-t an hypothesis; at least, that is what we believe about science today. It is therefor not surprising that Larry Summers defines Science as what it is, not as what it could be. When he posits hypotheses about women in science, he tries to minimize the variables. In his eyes, both women and science are well-defined.

However convenient that may be, science is not a rigid thing, not in the way it interacts with society and not in and of itself. Since the president of a university hires scientists, he should be accutely aware of what a scientist is or may be. His hypotheses, as a president, should at least include a less rigid definition of science.

Worse, though, is that he is working from self-fulfilling profecies. Say we lived in a world in which slavery was still very much accepted (for the sake of argument, I am going to assume we don't currently live in such a world). Then the hypothesis that slaves are not very well fitted to run the plantation would not only be tes-table, it would be tes-ted and found to be true. Anyone who would want to argue that slaves on a plantation should be set free, because they are equal to the plantation owners, would have a problem refuting that. However, nowadays nobody seriously believes that to be true, or even relevant anymore.

Should the president of a university be someone who has a strong respect for the scientific status quo? I don't know.

Universities discriminate against stupid people. Should the president of a university be smart? I don't know.

Following Summers' reasoning, the brightes-t women scientists would be hired by the universities that discriminate between dumb and smart people the most, and any discrepancy between men and women would point towards a hypothesis that women are not as bright as men. As the gate-keeper of a prestigious university, he has to keep the dumb people out and the smart people in. But the prestige of his university depends for a large part on the quality of the brains it employs, and if women truly are as smart as men, or if they can bring a new set of values to the table of science, this Harvard, Summers' Harvard, will lose out in a couple of decades and become a second tier university.

(And yes, the filter for the T-word is stupid. Or at least not one of the smartes-t.)

"Science could be much more"? What would you have it be? What step would you like to insert into the scientific method? Observe, hypothesize, te-st, theorize... Go ahead, add a step. Science is the quest for knowledge about the real world. Some things about the real world aren't pretty.

Observable Fact: there are few women professors in sciences at Harvard.
Hypotheses: Summers laid out three. David posited another above. A few more have been tossed out here and other places too.
T-est: One of the hypotheses was te-sted by a Nobel Laureate economist. Still no way to te-st David's "structural" hypothesis. He hasn't specified it enough to be subject it to any te-ting or scrutiny.
Theory: Well, we're not really there yet are we? We're arguing over whether any or all of the possible, te-stable explanations are too harsh for our sensibilities.

This is the quest for knowledge at its great-est folks!! The nice thing about the scientific method is that it's open to any explanation you want to offer, so long as you'll let us scrutinize it. Summers' detractors are open to any explanation, so long as it's in line with their arbitrary political sensibilities.

(Geez, Dave, you have to fix this filter. Please add "observe", "hypothesize", and "theorize" so that we can't discuss any of the scientific method.)

"...[T]here was once a general agreement not to hire black ball-players, which, once cracked, cracked wide."

Or was the agreement one padlock of many on a door that's being forced open, bit by bit? Once black players were accepted, it was a long slog to black coaches, then black owners, etc, and still no-one can argue that we're anywhere near a color-blind society. Becker's argument, if that's what it is, seems to assume that a single crack will bring down the whole edifice.

Larry Summers is being unfairly criticized for
saying out loud what most Harvard educators already know. Despite the fact that women now make up 50% of the student body- they disproportionately opt NOT to study higher mathematics and the mathematical sciences such as chemistry and physics. The reasons for this are not restricted enrollment for females. The reason is exactly as Summer's suggested , female students more so than men CHOOSE to study something else. This being the case - what is all the fuss about ?
If women are innately less gifted than men at mathematics then they are smart not to go in
over their heads out of sheer pride. If on the other hand, women are equally adept as men at mathematics and still choose not to do it- then that is THEIR CHOICE. It is simply not true to say that women are being "locked out"
of the sciences. As a female scientist, I am annoyed that some women choose to play the blame game rather than face up to the reality that in the end it really is their choice.
As I recall, the women's movement was about equal access. We have that now- the rest is up to us.

Brad, I was unable to remove blacklisted words because my MT-Blacklist installation was broken. I think I've fixed it now.

this is a test

I tend to agree with weinbergers fourth hypothesis about the scientific community being structured. I think its a very subtle thing which imposes on the participants in the community. An exmaple immediately comes to mind, say, there is a setting such as: kids in the neighbourhood are playing games in the street. let us say there are two such groups of kids playing different games in their streets A and B respectively. Now suppose a kid growing up in street A then it gets accustomed to the game played in his street by kids it knows and finds it very easy to merge into his group. But consider the other scenario one day none of them are playing and this kid ventures over to the other street and finds kids playing another game there. even being aware of the rules of the games they are playing this kid finds it a little intimidating to go and join that group of kids. Here we can think of the kids in street B having their own structure or atmosphere created for playing that game which is foreign to this kid and to add to that their interaction during game play also is new to this kid, making it all the more apprehensive to mingle with them.
Here it is neither the fault of the the kids in street B nor of kids in street A in having the situation as depicted. remember the kids playing in street B are open to any new kid joining their game but they will be allergic to alter their way of playing it. But if it so happens that the game played in street B regularly starts getting a new participant then it modifies the social structure of the playing group gradually to reflect this trend.
May be the fisrt two points put by summers were right or were wrong. those were his calculated opinions. But we should always be open to opposing viewpoints to keep ourselves from getting straight jacketed by our feelings. ultimately we are all after the truth and as Phillip Dick said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".

email addr corrected

""Science could be much more"? What would you have it be? What step would you like to insert into the scientific method?"

How would you test with mathematics? Oh, wait, that's right, mathematics is not science. Still, it seems to have found its niche within the scientific community.

Branko... Mathematics is not science. It's the language of science. Any lower division "physics for poets" course covers this.

I found an answer to my structural question in a post on Virginia Postrel's blog. She suggests that if college, grad school, post-docs, etc. were sped up, women could get the professorships and still have kids before they need to compete for a Guiness Book entry for oldest Mom to give birth to octuplets. So there is one answer to the structural question in the blogosphere, and it comes from someone who thinks it might be possible that Summers is more right that his detractors. It seems like "my side" is doing all the work in this debate ;-).

It seems to me academia promotes "diversity" of gender and skin color, but God forbid you should have "diversity" of thought. Is Summers so wrong in his words that women do not excel in the math and siences? How come it is okay to say that women are better than men is some aspects? Look at ANY college where engineering and the scienes are offered as majors and men outnumber women 3 to 1.

I think Summers is dim-witted. I think the President of Harvard should know that when he says things, a goodly number of people will think he is right no matter what the facts are. He is very sensitive about anti-semitism about which he knows something. But what does he know about the hurt women have suffered because of the men who close ranks against them? I have personally been at many meetings where I made a suggestion which was ignored, then the same idea was voiced by a male and they jumped on it as though it were the greatest thing since sliced bread. I suspect it is a hearing problem that men have. Other women on the Systers network have had the same experience. In fact, many women have said, "I must be a man, I can run circles around the men I work with."

I agree that motherhood does prevent women from working 80 hours a week at the office. I contend that men shouldn't be doing it either. How come men don't feel any compunction about neglecting the family? What nonsense. Come on, folks, nobody knows how many women are conditioned to not go in for math and science. The Vanderbilt study takes children who are too old. By 12, the conditioning has already begun. The conditioning begins almost from birth.

Men, I am an old woman, and I spent my career working in programming, designing, building and marketing computers from the ENIAC on. I have worked with great men without prejudice who gave whoever could do the job the job. Thank God, I didn't deal with the likes of Dr. Summers.

I read all previous comments with interest. Gosh, you know, the "Post a comment" rules at this blog state "Criticize ideas? Yes. Criticize people for holding those ideas? No." I would hope that this would be the rule at universities and academic conferences. Unfortunately, many people now no longer believe that this should be the case. Perhaps these people could make up lists of ideas in various areas that we are allowed to express for critical examination and those that we are not. And then maybe some important interest group could watch for violations and impose penalties on the violators. Oops, I guess we are already there.

Dave, I've been wanting to tell you I've greatly appreciated your revisiting this issue. I was busy trying to put my thoughts together on this, though. I've got another theory: http://blogs.salon.com/0001549/2005/03/02.html

BTW, I note the preponderance of men responding here. I also see a pattern. Hmmm.

Thanks, Rayne. I find your post fascinating and appreciate the different perspective you bring to the topic.

Thanks, Dave. The topic of "Where are the women in blogging?" pops up once every quarter or so. Next time it comes around, notice who's asking and from what state of consciousness they're asking the question. Are they asking based on numbers or based on relationships? Are they making any real effort to change it (as Dave Pollard of How to Save the World has), or are they merely keeping score?

This goes for those folks who ask "Where are the women in the board room?" and the "Where are the women in government?" From where are they asking the question?

p.s. thanks for being in an authentic state, by the way. ;-)

Summers made a big mistake. His second point was too subtle for the average American to understand, so his PC critics have dumbed it down into something they hate, so let's try and explain:

Summers didn't way women are dumber than men, and he didn't say women are dumber than men in science and math. He really didn't, so all of you who think he offered such a theory have to go back to first grade and learn to read.

Summers said - and this is an indisputable fact - that female aptitudes are not distributed across the female population the same way that male aptitudes are distributed across the male population. Think about that for a while, picturing a bell curve. If the bell curve represents female science aptitudes, the peak is pretty high and the slope is pretty steep. This means that women tend to cluster around the mean, or "normal" point in the curve.

Now take the curve and flatten it a bit. The lines pooch out to the sides and extend further before disappearing under the 0 point. This is the male bell curve for science aptitude, or math skill, or IQ. There aren't as many "normal" men as women, and there are more dumb men than dumb women. Nobody has a problem with admitting this. But the hard part is that we have to accept there are quite a few more "genius" men than "genius" women. Bummer.

Harvard science professors need to be close to "genius" caliber, and there are not as many women in that elite population as men. This is a fact that can be proved empirically, and it is this fact that has the PC drones upset with Summers.

So your argument isn't with Summers, it's with Mother Nature. Double bummer.

If Harvard wants more women to teach science all it has to do is lower standards, and given the reation of Nancy Hopkins to Summers' statement (got sick and ran off), they've already started.

Should the president of a university be someone who has a strong respect for the scientific status quo? I don't know.

Universities discriminate against stupid people. Should the president of a university be smart? I don't know.

Free Speech is Alive and Well in California

Varian Medical Systems and a number of its executives including George Zdasiuk the company's chief technical officer have been found guilty of breaking the law in a landmark 7-0 California Supreme Court decision:
http://www.geocities.com/mobeta_inc/slapp/slapp.html

Dave -- note Richard Bennett's comment preceding.

Which state: achievement or affiliative?