I’ve not commented on the brouhaha that has surrounded Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ comment at a conference last week that innate differences might have some role to play in explaining the relative underrepresentation of women in math and science (and relative overrepresentation of women in English and the humanities). Let me do so now. Bottom line: *shrug*. This is controversial? I think the whole situation is one giant overreaction based more on emotional response than on rational thinking. For evidence of that, I submit the statements of MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins upon hearing Summers’ remarks as exhibit A:
“I felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow, I was extremely upset.”
This is hardly the sort of reaction one would expect an accomplished scientist like Hopkins to have to a hypothesis she doesn’t agree with. It seems to me that the only way one can argue that what Summers said was so totally out of bounds that it would justify the sort of villification being thrown at him is if one can point to volumes of expiremental data that shows that genetic predispositions play no role whatsoever in determining our aptitudes for various types of thinking and fields of study. But that would seem an awfully bizarre argument for a biologist to make, wouldn’t it? I doubt Dr. Hopkins would react so viscerally to the suggestion that there are innate predispositions for doing different tasks in any other species. Are humans suddenly immune to any and all genetic influence?
The primary reason for the overreaction, I think, is that it is based on a crude caricature of the position being objected to. To listen to those who are upset over the comments (NOW has actually called for him to be removed as Harvard president for his horrible apostasy) you’d think that he had announced that women are stupid and men are smart. But he didn’t say anything like that. And the position that genetic differences may account for some of the differences between male and female achievement in different fields of study doesn’t say anything as idiotic as that. Steven Pinker, the MIT cognitive neuroscientist who is one of the foremost authorities on the question of genetic inputs into behavior and aptitudes, had this to say:
First, let’s be clear what the hypothesis is?every one of Summers’ critics has misunderstood it. The hypothesis is, first, that the statistical distributions of men’s and women’s quantitative and spatial abilities are not identical?that the average for men may be a bit higher than the average for women, and that the variance for men might be a bit higher than the variance for women (both implying that there would be a slightly higher proportion of men at the high end of the scale). It does not mean that all men are better at quantitative abilities than all women! That’s why it would be immoral and illogical to discriminate against individual women even if it were shown that some of the statistical differences were innate.
Second, the hypothesis is that differences in abilities might be one out of several factors that explain differences in the statistical representation of men and women in various professions. It does not mean that it is the only factor. Still, if it is one factor, we cannot reflexively assume that different statistical representation of men and women in science and engineering is itself proof of discrimination. Incidentally, another sign that we are dealing with a taboo is that when it comes to this issue, ordinarily intelligent scientists suddenly lose their ability to think quantitatively and warp statistical hypotheses into crude dichotomies.
As far as the evidence is concerned, I’m not sure what ?ample? means, but there is certainly enough evidence for the hypothesis to be taken seriously.
For example, quantitative and spatial skills vary within a gender according to levels of sex hormones. And in samples of gifted students who are given every conceivable encouragement to excel in science and math, far more men than women expressed an interest in pursuing science and math.
Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post also pointed out the same thing:
Summers (even in his earlier, unexpurgated form) wasn’t saying that no individual woman could be a stellar scientist, or mathematician, or engineer, only that overall one gender might be more inclined in that direction than the other. Indeed, if that did prove to be the case, it would be all the more important for educators at every level to nurture and encourage girls and women with scientific promise, and it would make those who achieve at the highest levels all the more valuable in a modern university, or any modern workforce conscious of the cost of gender disparities.
I am a feminist myself. I was a research assistant for a prominent feminist scholar in college. But there is a point at which a rational and mature feminism gives way to a childish feminism that is as intolerant as the misogyny that it responds to, and I think this situation demonstrates that to be true. The hyper-emotional response of the MIT biologist exemplifies the resulting overreaction. As Ruth Marcus said in response to Hopkins’ sudden transformation from brilliant scientist to southern belle with the vapors, “Was there a feminist around — myself included — who didn’t wince at this bring-out-the-smelling-salts statement?” No, you are certainly not the only one. If you become physically ill at the mere suggestion that there might be some other view with merit, then perhaps this whole academic thing isn’t really for you. Universities are supposed to be a place where ideas are debated, not silenced. Summers even announced right up front in his speech that he was going to present some provocative ideas.
Marcus also made the very interesting point that there is a tension here between the scientific reality that genetics is an important input into human aptitudes and the political reaction to such statements in this particular context. Those who are reacting so vociferously to the invocation of some genetic influence on the aptitudes of men and women would likely react just as badly if someone dared to suggest that homosexuality is not genetically influenced. They recognize the role of genetics in virtually every other human trait, from a tendency toward violence from high testosterone levels to a genetic predisposition toward being gay. But the mere suggestion that genetics may play some role in determining the relative affinity and aptitude for specific types of thinking (not that it’s the sole answer, or that it is biologically determinative, just that it might be part of the explanation) provokes an instantaneous and furious reaction. And the reaction is not to show why his statements were wrong, but merely to shut him up and punish him for his heresy. Look, we all know that there are some truly absurd claims that have been made in the realm of sociobiology, some of them deservedly condemned for their basis in and encouragement of bigotry. But you don’t have to be a fan of Charles Murray (and personally, I think the Bell Curve was mostly nonsense) to accept that genetics does play a role in both our affinity and our aptitude for various types of thinking.
I am very good at some types of thinking and very poor at others, just like most poeple, and I have no doubt that genetics has a role to play in that, a complex role that is quite intertwined with the effects of socialization as well. And it’s hardly a huge leap of logic to think that if there are genetic predispositions to such attributes among individuals because of the complex interplay of hormone levels and brain biochemistry, then the statistical distribution of those attributes is not going to be distributed between the genders with absolute equality, especially when the genders do differ in terms of brain biochemistry and hormone levels. If that is true, it emphatically does not mean that because there is a higher proportion of men than women who are highly skilled at math or science, women are dumber than men or those women who are really good at math and science aren’t every bit as good as men who are good at it. Just like it doesn’t mean that because there are more women than men who are highly skilled at English that therefore men with an aptitude for English are any less accomplished than women.
I’ll say the same thing to the group throwing a fit over this that I say to the constant blather we hear from conservative students about their teachers being “anti-Christian” or “anti-american”: get over it. If you’re in an academic community, either as a student or a professor, you are going to run into ideas you don’t like. You’re going to run into people who say things that royally piss you off. You have two choices when faced with such ideas: you can fall down on the floor and kick your feet and scream about how oppressed you are, or you can engage those ideas, debate them, and either prove them wrong or perhaps find out that you were wrong. Unfortunately, those who choose the first reaction also often try to get people fired for daring to say things they don’t like, and they are trying to do that to Summers as well (just as at another Ivy League school, some conservatives are trying to get a professor fired for supporting some positions taken by militant Islamic groups that commit terrorism). The irony is that these two groups don’t realize how much they are behaving like each other. I think Steven Pinker nailed it when asked whether Summers’ remarks were within the pale of legitimate academic discourse:
Good grief, shouldn’t everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That’s the difference between a university and a madrassa…
Look, the truth cannot be offensive. Perhaps the hypothesis is wrong, but how would we ever find out whether it is wrong if it is ?offensive? even to consider it? People who storm out of a meeting at the mention of a hypothesis, or declare it taboo or offensive without providing arguments or evidence, don’t get the concept of a university or free inquiry.
Amen, Brother Pinker. Amen.