So my best guess, to provoke you, of what’s behind all of this is that
the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people’s
legitimate family desires and employers’ current desire for high power
and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly
of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are
reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization
and continuing discrimination. [emphasis added.]
He never, ever says that women aren’t as smart as men, or even that
women aren’t as good at science and engineering. He does say that
there is some evidence of different levels of variability of aptitudes
generally between the sexes. Let’s be frank: if
you think that Summers is saying that men are “better” or women are
“worse,” you either aren’t reading closely or aren’t thinking clearly.
He is making an argument about long tails on distributions, and his statement as no
bearing on any individual person’s aptitude or on the central
tendency. He is positing an explanation for an observed fact
based upon a theory about low-probability events on the very tip of the
bell curve (4 standard deviations out, he suggests). And guess
what? That’s fair.
To be frank: it was off-the-cuff and intellectually lazy of Summers to
fail to prepare for A. his speech, with more hard evidence, and B. the
predictable brouhaha that would follow. It may be dilettanteism
to
introduce one’s personal “best guess” based upon watching little girls
play with toy trucks. Yes, Summers is arguably playing fast and
loose with
the evidence. But yet! Folks: the name of this progressive
game is progress. We do not
make progress by getting all ad hominem on someone for suggesting
something, which might be true, the implications of which make us
uncomfortable! If variability in aptitudes is intrinsically
different between the sexes, denying it is not helpful (ignoring it,
however, may indeed be helpful).
Furthermore, dear reader, may I remind you of a certain split among
psychometricians that was highlighted a few years back with The Bell
Curve. Essentially, there are proponents of g — general
intelligence — a monolithic index of all cognitive facilities, and then
there are the multiple intelligences (MI) folks. The MI vs g
argument was, many of us hoped, more than just a tactical skirmish over some
culture war turf — it was supposed to advance the way we think about
people, giving us more dimensions, more axes on which to measure, and
ultimately more positive ways to value individuals. The
conclusions we could take away from confronting evidence of population
differences in intelligence levels with the theory of MI — that
intelligences are spread out all over, and measured differences in
populations are as likely to be artifacts of testing or definition bias
toward particular intelligences as they are to be cultural or hereditary trends — that requires giving up the silly
notion of absolute equality on every axis of ability between every
definable group. If the
anti-Summers campaigners force us back to g, we lose ground. In other words: if we want to keep MI, we might
have to acknowledge that some of the knobs get turned differently in
different populations. This is not a moral argument.
But, keep in mind: the Summers point wasn’t that the female mind is
dulled to the science facility — merely that the standard deviation is
bigger, on some things, on brosephs than on brosephines. If, like
me, you want to see the very best of humankind able to excel and
achieve, then the demographic makeup of the very best has no bearing,
so long as nobody is banned based upon reasons orthogonal to actual
individual ability.
This tempest-in-a-teapot is a good time to bring up my rules for talking about politics:
1. Engage ideas in good faith as they are presented, and don’t take it (or give it!) personally.
2. Be clear and explicit about your goals.