Old Lady Maxine Job Cartoons

confess that I love the scandal starring Lawrence Summers. I've always wondered what would happen if science overturn any of the dogmas of political correctness. Well, there has not been the case, but it was enough that the president of Harvard hints at the presence of genetic causes to explain the greater presence of men in statistical research to find out. What immorality even hint that nature has not acted in accordance with the requirements of political correctness! Any sample? Just check some headlines collecting the Summers affair. Misogyny! Misogyny!

But what has actually said Lawrence Summers? I regret that link where before I could read his talk page has disappeared from Harvard. Fortunately, we have the explanation that he gave the psychologist Steven Pinker in defense of the President:

• hypothesized Summers, Pinker reminds us is that there may be a small statistical variation in the numerical and spatial skills between men and women. This does not mean that all men are more math skills that women (of course, I declare from now below the average female in the possession of such skills). That is why it would be immoral to establish any kind of institutional discrimination against women, even if it was shown that the statistical variation involving genetic causes.

• addition, the hypothesis is that genetic factors may be one, among several, of the causes of the uneven distribution between men and women scientists. But just that genetics is involved makes this inequality can not be explained, without more, appealing to discrimination that women may have suffered. In any event, a sign that we are dealing with a taboo is found that when they raised the issue, many intelligent people end up becoming a statistical hypothesis on a radical dichotomy. In spite, of course, their own numeracy skills.

• There is also sufficient evidence for the hypothesis being considered and examined. For example, same-sex math skills vary from one individual to another depending on the amount of sex hormones.

• The difference between an Islamist madrasa and a university is that in this latter can submit anything critical review whenever there is a minimum of rigor.

• like Summers Hypothesis is perfectly fitted in academic discussions about psychology.

• Finally, I translate literally: The truth can not be offensive. Perhaps the hypothesis is wrong, but how could we ever know if it is offensive even consideration? Who leaves a meeting angry when you mention a hypothesis or declared taboo and offensive without providing arguments, do not understand the concept of free university or research .

And by the way, from what I read in the English press on the subject, only Juan Carlos Giraut has come out in defense of Lawrence Summers.

Finally, do not stop reading the blog entry in the magnificent Gene Expression on the subject:

The interview in The New York Times illustrated Some funny misconceptions. For example: "Among His Hypotheses Were that ... innate sex diferencias Women Might leave less capable of succeeding at the MOST advanced mathematics ...." That I suspect> 99% of people really can not hack it in the field of algebraic topology. So couching it in Terms of "women" is a problem, as it frames it as if this is an issue Generally That Is Relevant to all of us. The Difference between Men and Women Might be, for example, 99.8% of men can not hack it in algebraic tpology, while 99.9% of Women can not hack it. On a person-on-the-street level, it really Does not Matter Much, Though the numbers Above Imply That Men Are Twice As Likely To Be Able to hack it as Women, so in the realm of advanced mathematics specifically it matters.