I have almost forgotten about the whole Larry Summers controversy, but it apparently surfaced, now that he is one of the leading candidates for treasury secretary.
I have read an interesting Freakonomics post, and I must admit, it makes some very good points, more or less aligned with my own opinions on the matter.
As Harvard president, Summers MUST have known that everything he says will be interpreted out of context, possibly as official policy of the university. Just like Obama "bitter and clingy" comment, which I totally agree with, by the way, was a political mistake, so was Summers statement. But leaving politics out of it, would what he said be as controversial - scientifically speaking?
In discussing Summers with Mrs. Ponderer, who simply hates Larry Summers - I asked her to summarize what he said. "That women can't be good at math" was her response. This is also what was being reported in the media.
Do this simple experiment - go around and ask people to tell you in their words what was it that Summers said that got him in trouble. It's an interesting Rorschach-test type question with a wide spectrum of answers. Then go to google and find the full transcript of his speech.
Political overtones aside, the question of whether there is a greater variance of certain skills in males or females is a legitimate scientific question, the one that can be answered with data, without all media hysteria. Since there are studies that show that males also vastly outnumber women on the low-IQ tail of the spectrum means that this hypothesis is not so outlandish after all. This may also be related to the fact that males are much more likely to be involved in risky (e.g. criminal) behavior.
Since I am not an expert in this field, I can't take sides in this discussion, but the argument often presented by anti-Summers side that merely asking a hypothetical scientific question about origins of differences in cognitive abilities between genders is sexist seems very un-scientific and dangerous to me.
Having said that, Summers pissed off a lot of people for reasons not related to his famous speech, which was the main reason so many faculty members were against him.
But then again, how is any of this relevant to position of treasure secretary? If anything, perhaps I actually want a somewhat mean (but incredibly) guy who is not afraid to piss off some industries or lobbyists in charge of the treasury. And on gender equality issues, Summers is likely to be overcompensating for the rest of his life, to make up for the media circus that followed his speech. So it's a win either way.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
merely asking a hypothetical scientific question about origins of differences in cognitive abilities between genders is sexist seems very un-scientific and dangerous to me
It's a sticky issue. In principle I agree with you but I can see the point of those who see behind the "objective and dispassionate inquirer" someone who is merely pandering to conservative ideology.
In general, I am afraid that there exists somewhere a line that separates a genuine call for further study, an enlightened exhortation to consider alternate, possibly controversial hypotheses, from a sneaky attempt at turning back the clock of history.
Beyond that line you find holocaust deniers, the authors of "The Bell Curve", creationists, medical quackery, pseudo-science and all sort of individuals who often call themselves "scientists" and claim to have done "research".
I think at some point you too stop taking seriously and paying attention to what is said.
I am not necessarily saying that Summers fits that profile. Personally, however, I would have much more respect for him if he had been more eager to take flak from both sides -- if he had proven more of a "maverick", to use election jargon -- as opposed to provoking always in one direction only.
For example, after deciding that Cornell West was the best example of "deadwood" at Harvard, and then publicly stating that more study is needed on women's possible inferior math ability, why did he not go on to ask provocatively, oh, I don't know, "Is the free market always the best approach to the delivery of services ?", or, "Is military buildup a good thing for a nation ?", or "isn't more study needed to determine whether welfare really produces dependence ?". Or are these themes off the table for discussion in his free-thinking mind ?
Massimo:
I agree that such a line does exist, and the question is what side this falls on. I personally think Summers choice of remarks and venue for his gender speech were tactless (at the very least), as was his handling of Cornel West. This general tactlessness and rudeness were fairly characteristic of his presidency at Harvard, and meant that the faculty were extremely ready to turn on him when controversy arose.
While I think his particular remarks on gender were poorly chosen (to say the least), I was very disappointed in the response of the audience and nation. As IP notes, so many people reacted with "he thinks women can't do science", which is just a complete misreading. From a scientific point of view, I'm always disturbed by how controversial it is to say that there could in principle be any genetic component to mental variation, when it is not controversial that more boys are autistic. That said, the social implications mean that one ought to tread very carefully with such ideas. That said, he was making offhand remarks about the research of others and clearly missed plenty of work on the subject that comes to different conclusions.
For your final point, I don't think we should judge Summers based on other controversial positions he didn't take (or, at least, didn't get national attention for taking). The two you mention were issues relevant to his job as Harvard president. He addressed gender because he was asked to speak to an audience on that subject (and was generally dealing with gender issues and the expansion of the Harvard science campus at the time). He addressed tenure criteria because that is his role as Harvard President. He could have addressed other topics in his role as a general public intellectual, and he probably did. But there's no reason to expect him to address some balance of topics we feel are politically important.
Yes, "gender differences in cognition" are a legitimate subject of scientific study. I for one might actually be happy if the disparity between men and women in the sciences were due to something biochemical; optimistically speaking, that would suggest it'd be an easy problem to fix. To take a hypothetical case: it's fairly likely that iron deficiency anaemia can cause cognitive impairment in children. If it were found that young females required a higher iron intake than young males in the early grade-school years, then we could try nutritional supplement programmes (in conjunction with school breakfasts and lunches, for example).
Would it were all so easy!
Nothing involving a machine as complicated as the human brain is going to be that simple. In some populations, men have a larger variance than women; other times, it's the other way around. (The most recent and widely-touted study by Janet Hyde et al. found that Asian-American girls had a larger variance in their test-score distribution than Asian-American boys, for example.) Hiring in technical fields is not actually restricted to any "upper tail". Etc.
Summers deserved to lose his job because he was a bad administrator.
Post a Comment