New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | January 21, 2005

If Lawrence Summers makes you throw up, is that a sign of refined taste or hypersensitivity? Jacob Sullum investigates.

Comments

|1.21.05 @ 10:40AM|#

This issue, as fascinating as it is, is a no-win issue in discussions. Yes, I know, no topic should be off-limits to rational inquiry. The fact remains that some things are too dangerous for a male scientist to broach if he doesn't want to get some unfortunate labels.

What is admittedly funny, however, is that Summers wasn't questioning the ability of the women in science. He was suggesting that most of the women who aren't in science are different from the women who are in science.

What's even funnier is that if you look at the material in a TA training handbook, you'll find statements that are quite condescending toward women, yet are couched in politically correct language and hence pass muster.

|1.21.05 @ 10:43AM|#

I am still perplexed as to how this could be controversial. Maybe it's because they're women and can't think critically like we men can.

fyodor|1.21.05 @ 10:44AM|#

I kinda put this in the category of what I would think about someone who got arrested after lighting up a joint in front of a cop. Sure, I don't think you really did anything wrong or that you should be getting treated the way you are for it. But dude, a little common sense....

|1.21.05 @ 10:47AM|#

Fyodor I wouldn't call it "common sense" as much as "learning from others past experiences as to what the reaction might be".

Err, common sense, I guess ;)

|1.21.05 @ 10:50AM|#

I wonder how many of the offendees supported that professor who said that he hoped for "a million Mogadishus" in Iraq, on the grounds of academic freedom.

|1.21.05 @ 10:50AM|#

"it says more about the ability of academics to engage in rational debate when confronted by views that contradict their cherished assumptions."

I'm drawing a particular parallel to those who have no problem pushing their religious beliefs on others, but become hostile (to put it nicely) when someone questions those beliefs.

|1.21.05 @ 11:01AM|#

sage,

That's not quite parallel; academics are supposed to care more about the rational search for truth than "their cherished assumptions."

On the other hand, a religious believer has committed him/herself to a certain set of beliefs, so it's understandable that (s)he might not appreciate hearing them contradicted.

Of course, I think all people, both academic and religious, should place the rational search for truth above all but the most obvious assumptions -- for if indeed God is truth, he is well served by this pursuit.

|1.21.05 @ 11:09AM|#

"I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill."

Someone this frail should, perhaps, be under constant medical supervision. :)

|1.21.05 @ 11:10AM|#

I think fyodor hit the nail on the head.

The only way to present any hint of innate gender differences is to bring in reams and reams of data and then say "The fact that these differences persist despite so many efforts to control the variables suggests that discrimination may be even more pervasive than we thought." And then you hope that the audience realizes how weak that explanation is (but there's nothing dishonest about it, because you've presented this absurdity as a hypothesis with due caveats, rather than making an assertion).

|1.21.05 @ 11:14AM|#

I'm drawing a particular parallel to those who have no problem pushing their religious beliefs on others, but become hostile (to put it nicely) when someone questions those beliefs.

Are you saying Hopkins' opinions are religious rather than scientific? Many would agree.

|1.21.05 @ 11:23AM|#

crimethink,

Screw you. How dare you come here and contradict something I have to say? I can't believe...BAAAARRRRRRF!

Please allow me a moment to hose off my keyboard.

|1.21.05 @ 11:27AM|#

How about there are plenty of women with all the talent you need for top level math and science, but they drop out because they don't share the delusion that it's all that important compared to a social life. Unlike men.

An excerpt of Vicki Hearne's essay on testosterone poisoning, listing math as one of the positive side effects, http://home.att.net/~rhhardin9/vickihearne.womenmath.txt

|1.21.05 @ 11:28AM|#

We are the priests of the temples of Harvard.
Our great computers fill the hallowed halls.
We are the preist of the temples of Harvard.
The gift of life is found wihtin our walls!

|1.21.05 @ 11:35AM|#

Geddy -

Yeah, but
-----
The sexes are all kept equal
by falsehoods, lies, and tales
-----

|1.21.05 @ 11:41AM|#

I think we should not be so hard on Nancy Hopkins. You know how emotional women get during their time of the month.

|1.21.05 @ 11:48AM|#

I am still perplexed as to how this could be controversial. Maybe it's because they're women and can't think critically like we men can.

While obviousbly meant tongue-in-cheek, there is certainly truth to this.

|1.21.05 @ 11:48AM|#

And what about demands by saggy titted hippy coeds when they want 'women only' schools and colleges because 'boys make them feel intimidated' in math and science classes? Sure, if a chick said it, they'd be nodding their unwashed heads in unison.

|1.21.05 @ 11:57AM|#

Oh, please--everyone's a winner in this little flap. NBER got precisely the controversy they wanted Summers to spark. Summer's comments and the women's point of view were heard only because the women left the room, making it newsworthy. Otherwise only the pointy-headed academics pay attention to these kinds of conferences.

|1.21.05 @ 12:00PM|#

An excerpt of Vicki Hearne's essay on testosterone poisoning, listing math as one of the positive side effects, http://home.att.net/~rhhardin9/vickihearne.womenmath.txt

The point about equistrian is a good one. Men tend towards things that can be obviously controlled. Women tend towards....shit, I have no idea what they tend towards.

Franklin Harris|1.21.05 @ 12:02PM|#

Does anyone have Nancy Hopkins' e-mail? I'm gonna make her throw up all over her keyboard.

|1.21.05 @ 12:06PM|#

I do.

|1.21.05 @ 12:11PM|#

I love the hysterical reactions.
Moderate drinkers are healthier because a high proportion of teetotalers are former heavy drinkers.

|1.21.05 @ 12:14PM|#

In other words, Hopkins entered this conference with the preconceived notion that women are being discriminated against, and stomped out upon hearing another theory. An MIT biologist who refuses to consider that there might--just might--be differences in how men's and women's brains are wired. Jesus wept.

Women are 51% of the population; does that mean men can NEVER comprise more than 49% of a given field without facing charges of discrimination?

|1.21.05 @ 12:28PM|#

Women are 51% of the population; does that mean men can NEVER comprise more than 49% of a given field without facing charges of discrimination?

I'm sure that, as a good scientist, Hopkins would allow for variances of +/- Sqrt(# of people working in that field), due to the nature of statistical sampling.

|1.21.05 @ 12:34PM|#

Hopkins never suggested that the brains of women and men are wired exactly the same way or that there are no differences in the abilities of men and women, any more than Summers said women are innately less intelligent than men.

|1.21.05 @ 12:36PM|#

Anyone care to fashion an action plan?

The problem: Elite academia is a self-fulfilling prophecy. An overwhelming majority of faculty and elite schools (and nonelite schools, for that matter) share the same assumptions. When criticized, as a group they deny the charge but the criticism tends to reinforce their beliefs.

There also appears to be a careful screening process for tenured positions that rejects those that do not hold the group's assumptions.

It takes a person with balls to piss off smart raconteurs like Cornel West. I doubt that 75 Larry Summers clones will arrive on college campuses anytime soon.

|1.21.05 @ 12:38PM|#

Serafina-
Then why did Hawkins stomp out of there? (Insert time-of-the-month joke here, if you desire.)

|1.21.05 @ 12:48PM|#

Actually, here's what I think the problem is: unwillingness to accept that equal OPPORTUNITY doesn't mean equal RESULTS. So long as mathematically/scientifically gifted women are not barred from utilizing their talents, what's wrong with considering the possibility that such women may be more scarce than their male counterparts?

|1.21.05 @ 12:50PM|#

Women are 51% of the population; does that mean men can NEVER comprise more than 49% of a given field without facing charges of discrimination?

Jennifer, when you can answer "yes" to that question, you will be ready to reapply for your teaching license. :)

|1.21.05 @ 12:55PM|#

Hopkins left because she disagreed with Summers about the role social factors play in determining success. He was positing that because autism has been shown to have a genetic basis, maybe math ability is more due to genetics than social factors. And he told the insipid anecdote about his daughter--who of course had a gender-neutral upbringing--making her two trucks into a daddy truck and baby truck. It is an amusingly naive argument to make in a supposedly scientific discussion.

And scholars are kind of a high-strung funny bunch anyway. Many were probably as much offended by Summers as an economist speaking outside of his area of expertise.

|1.21.05 @ 1:02PM|#

He was positing that because autism has been shown to have a genetic basis, maybe math ability is more due to genetics than social factors.

It is.

Women don't think geometrically.

|1.21.05 @ 1:03PM|#

TPG-
Actually, geometry was the ONE math class at which I excelled.

|1.21.05 @ 1:06PM|#

TPG-
Actually, geometry was the ONE math class at which I excelled.

Learning geometry and thinking geometrically are two completely different things.

|1.21.05 @ 1:08PM|#

Summers apologized? Jeez, what a wuss.

|1.21.05 @ 1:15PM|#

Eh, Summers is no wuss. I don't think he apologized when he was at the World Bank for saying "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."

|1.21.05 @ 2:02PM|#

Thomas Paine's Goiter at January 21, 2005 12:00 PM
"Women tend towards....shit, I have no idea what they tend towards."
so glad to know its not just me!


Jennifer at January 21, 2005 12:48 PM
"Actually, here's what I think the problem is: unwillingness to accept that equal OPPORTUNITY doesn't mean equal RESULTS..."
i will be plagiarizing that for future use.

|1.21.05 @ 2:23PM|#

Interesting data and statistics are here:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/women_and_minorities_in_science.htm

|1.21.05 @ 2:54PM|#

I was just discussing this with my sister, who reminded me that she USED to be an engineer. She graduated with a BS in Math and got an MS in Design Engineering. She has professional certification as a design engineer and an industrial engineer.

She left a very nice job to go into interactive software programming because, and I quote "Engineering is so damned boring"

|1.21.05 @ 2:55PM|#

In an interesting coincidence, I found a differing opinion from Mr. Sullum's here. What a hatchet job.

|1.21.05 @ 3:00PM|#

I don't know, it seems to me that Summers was riffing off of a study, without fully bothering to do the legwork to get it straight. In his case it's tricky...is he really just a scholar, or is political reference...in his case, probably more tha later, and subsequently needs to be more "political" in nature (not a liberal perspective, rather a pragmatic one...) that said, was he representing the study correctly? Don't know, haven't read it...but...
Sociologist Cited By Summers Calls His Talk �Uninformed�

I have this anecdotal comment to make. While working in pharma R & D, I was accidentally included in a conversation involving the question of whether or not two senior R & D execs, Really wanted to promote a woman to a certain position (they were pretty clear they DID NOT want to). In this case, her immediate superiors didn't take well to the comments, they were show me people, they said they couldn't see how that was relevant and promoted her based on her skill and knowledge (which was off the charts).

It was pretty cool to be present for.

|1.21.05 @ 3:04PM|#

I work for a Community Services Board. 70% of the employees here are female. Women are clearly over-represented. So where is the outrage?

Of course, there is very little "geometric thinking" going on around here.

|1.21.05 @ 3:17PM|#

I don't know IMK, before I went to work in Pharma, I was tech/customer relations and worked in a call center (expanded it to internet center) and was 90% female staff, and there was a lot of bullshit there, because I'm a freak I enjoyed it for a while...but when it gets to comments on your looks get tired after a while for even a guy, even if they are positive, you finally just boil over and say f_ _ it. When the net project was done was when I moved on, and yes the reverse harassment was a major reason. I just dealt with in good naturedly because there was a quality of it that was like something out of a William Self novel. At seminars I have had this reported to me in folks in similar positions.

And while in pharma, I became friendly with a guy who had started as nurse...eventually went on to become an NP, and got a business degree, but he reported that here in Chicago, at least untill the early 90's, the harassment he felt was pretty intense. Even though he had too kids and is a bit of a cowboy, he rarely made it through his shift without one of his fellow nurses joking about his sexuality.

Ah well, were all apes in this one, just less hair.

|1.21.05 @ 6:02PM|#

You know what's funny? The type of woman likely to take umbrage at Summers' comments is usually the same type who also likes to point out that we women are far superior to men when it comes to empathy, socialization, linguistic skills, being a decent human being, ad infinitum.

In other words, when it comes to traditionally male pursuits there's no difference between men and women, but when it comes to traditionally female pursuits then all y'all Penile-Americans can fuck off and die. Or something to that effect.

But in all seriousness, given the huge amount of measurable, quantifiable data showing that genetic differences between the sexes are responsible for differences in longevity, disease rates, tendency toward birth defects and a whole host of other things, how can any woman--any person--trained as a scientist refuse to even CONSIDER that there might be similiar differences in brains? Why should the brain be practically the only part of the body not affected in some way by the presence of either male or female DNA?

All that matters is that the generalizations don't become the basis of policy or law. Men in general are taller than women, but there are still a lot of women who are taller than the average man. Likewise, men in general are probably better at certain hard sciences, but there are still a lot of women who excel in hard science and they should not be kept out of that field simply because they would be a minority. And that's not what Summers is advocating.

Furthermore, this conference was unrecorded so that the people involved could speak without doing so 'for the record.' This was, presumably, to encourage people to feel free to toss out for consideration any idea that comes to mind (often the best way to stumble upon solutions, in a group). For Hawkins to complain to the media about Summers' comment under these of all circumstances proves, in my mind, that she is not only intellectually dishonest, but dishonest on a personal level as well.

|1.22.05 @ 4:18PM|#

This is, of course, a publicity stunt on the part of Hopkins. If I remember correctly, she did something like this previously at MIT and it worked out well for her.

|1.23.05 @ 12:25AM|#

Study results just publicized:

http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1261

"While there are essentially no disparities in general intelligence between the sexes, a UC Irvine study has found significant differences in brain areas where males and females manifest their intelligence.

"The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray matter related to intellectual skill, revealing that no single neuroanatomical structure determines general intelligence and that different types of brain designs are capable of producing equivalent intellectual performance..."

"In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents information processing centers in the -- or connections between -- these processing centers.

"This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such as required for language facility. These two very different neurological pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests."

What sickening bias!

|1.23.05 @ 1:59AM|#

Hopkins needs to remember that differences between populations do not mean there are no differences within populations. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that mathematical ability can be mapped onto a linear scale. (This is an over-simplification, since there are many different mathematical disciplines with different thinking skills, but bear with me.)

And let's say, for the sake of argument, that the distribution of male scores on this mathematical aptitude scale has a higher mean than the distribution of female scores. Or at least that the distribution of male scores includes more males at the high end of the scale where scientists are drawn from. Indeed, it could even be that the female distribution has a higher average but a smaller width, meaning that there are fewer women at the high and low ends.

In any case, there are still plenty of females at the high end of the scale, and they are every bit as good at math as the males at the high end of the scale (and every bit as worthy of opportunity). Hell, compare me with some of the women in my department who work on string theory. My mathematical skills pale next to theirs, even though I know more math than 99% of the population. These women are definitely from the extreme end of the distribution, and they deserve the same respect as any male scientist.

|1.24.05 @ 4:20AM|#

To quote Popeye, 'women is fickle.'