Purpose
This post is in response to a classic question about the basic nature versus nurture debate. The main postulate is that although natural gifts and deficiencies exist in all of us (regardless of gender), the forces of nurture are so powerful as to render the effects of the natural gifts fairly insignificant. In other words, the relationship between nature and nurture is overwhelmingly dominated by nurture. Therefore, people in positions of authority should refrain from indiscriminate speculation about the statistical significance of said relationship because it is not professional conduct to bully others with one’s random opinion.
Background
It all started with a great post over at DailyBail.com. The headline was tongue in cheek, as the clever DB is wont to write: “Video: TARP Hits the Fan: Neil Cavuto asks Elizabeth Warren ‘Why Doesn’t Larry Summers Like You?’“ Despite the serious nature of the actual clip and unable to contain my displeasure with anything Larry Summers-related, my flippant comment was:
Duh, Neil–Summers doesn’t like her because she’s a girl who can do math (real good-like, too) and he’s pig with not enough sense to keep his trap shut.
I included a link to an article which displayed Larry Summers’ inability to keep his trap shut. This prompted the following response from a fellow commenter:
SNK, Is there no truth to the inclinations of men vs. women? I mean, I know sexism is very real, but beyond that, aren’t there differences in inclination (percentage-wise)? My sister was the only female physics major in her class, and even she has said “there just aren’t many women interested in physics.”
I’m not trying to pick a fight here, I’m curious and would like to hear your opinion.
And I am happy to oblige. I promised a very unprofessional response would be forthcoming on this blog and I certainly do not want to disappoint. (It’s rather late in coming, but five weeks of house guests will do that to you.)
IMHO, this is really a discussion about the abuse of math and science (statistics and genetics, to be specific) and their misuse for personal piggery, not about differences between the sexes per se. Larry Summers has made comments (while acting as president of Harvard University–and I use the word “acting” as a real double entendre, here) regarding the under representation of women in math and science academia that have been neither well thought out, nor supported with documentation, nor balanced. Therefore the focus should be on Summers’ lack of sense, common or otherwise, lack of leadership capabilities, and inability to behave appropriately in academic–or any type of professional–settings.
Hypothesis
I think we will find that Larry Summers is a pig.
Materials
1) Boston Globe article from January 17, 2005 (pretty good)
2) Larry Summers’ bio from Wikipedia (eh—good enough)
3) My random opinions (way more than good enough)
Procedure
I read some stuff, applied my random opinions to the subject, and came up with some thoughts which I will hereafter refer to as facts. (As far as I can see, this is standard operating procedure for most disciplines/professions, including economics, marketing, education, psychology, journalism, blogging, politics, and banking. Adding a veneer of scientific pseudo intellectualism apparently seals the deal on credibility, too. Now if I can just slip in the word Schadenfreude, or a little something about Nietzsche, it would near win me a Nobel these days–or at least a bailout!)
Data
There is no data here. (What do you think this is, a graded homework assignment?)
Analysis and Discussion
We all have inclinations and interests. Inclinations and interests differ from innate abilities and capacities (or deficiencies) in that they are conditions not present at birth; they are learned. For example, if I were to perchance come upon Larry Summers walking down the street, I myself would be inclined to smack him upside the head. I would be interested to see how happy that would make me feel. (I suspect very.) Yet I was not born inclined to smack Larry Summers upside the head and/or interested to see how it would make me feel (i.e., I have no innate capacity that compels me to smack him upside the head, etc.). They are simply an inclination and an interest developed (‘learned’) over time by the convergence of several environmental forces: my intolerance of stupid bullies, my disgust with Keynesian voodoo so-called economists, my impatience with elitists, and my deep mistrust of anyone related to the current administration with its thievery dressed up as bailout/stimulus mentality.
In other words, my postulated smacking of Larry Summers upside the head would be categorized as a product of NURTURE.
Larry Summers contends that there are innate (inborn) differences in scientific and mathematical abilities between males and females. Now, I’m sure a discussion of the merits of this argument could go on endlessly. However, I don’t want to take sides on it, because there is a slight possibility Larry Summers is technically correct (which would not lessen my desire to smack him upside the head, by the way). I’m guessing, though, that if you could manage strict control over the independent variables in your subjects’ lives (i.e.–the blatancies and subtleties of nurture they receive for years and years on end–an impossibility, really), you would find so little variation between genders as to render the original argument useless. There would be gadzillions of females who would excel at math and science given opportunities and encouragement precisely comparable to those their male counterparts received. (“Gadzillions” is a technical mathematical term. It means ‘lots’.) Nurture (or environment) is a massive and pervasive force in our lives, so pervasive that people like Larry Summers, people not given to acknowledging reality, tend to fail to even recognize it’s influence.
Time has taught me that success in math and science is due far more to practice, persistence and preparation than any innate ability or capacity. After all, are any of us, male or female, born with the ability to do calculus or explain nuclear physics? Of course not. We need to be taught these things and must march ourselves through particular thought processes to understand them. These are nurtured skills, not innate abilities.
My main argument with him, this Larry Summers (order: artiodactyla, family: suidae, genus: sussummers, species: scrofalawrence), is his pigosity. It is hyperly irresponsible for the president of any university, much less a highly prestigious one, to unleash his personal bigotry via pseudo scientific rhetoric. Throwing out half-baked ideas at a symposium where attendees (female and male) have spent years plumbing the depths of their respective fields is sloppy and disrespectful.
Additionally, Larry Summers failed to cite any of the studies that show little girlies actually score higher than boys on tests in all areas up until middle school. I personally don’t think one can conclude anything about innate abilities between genders from these studies (I’ll throw out there that it has more to do with the fit between gender learning and modern day teaching styles), but with these I could easily put the kibosh on Summers’ claim that boys have some exclusive superiority in math and science. That is, if I was as sloppy and disrespectful as he.
What was the point of Larry Summers saying what he did? In my opinion, it was born of the same immature mentality that causes children to taunt each other with “Boys are better than girls!” or “Girls rule, boys drool!” Very unbecoming of an adult.
Larry–you dunderhead—grow up! News flash: to be an effective leader of a group, one must respect its members, and Larry Summers proved he does not respect women. If he was attempting to be bloviatingly scholarly, he would have brought out a balancing fabrication (or “point”—whatever you want to call it) such as ‘and men are innately deficient in social skills—why, for proof, just look at me!’ OK, case closed, dude. I would sure enjoy that Schadenfreude [bingo!].
Larry Summers obviously has an inability to communicate effectively: he does not know when to stop talking. I would suggest he stops talking at the moment he stops thinking. This would make for a fairly quiet Larry Summers, which would be great for our country since at present he is pretending to be an economist. Plus this is a guy who can’t even stay awake during important meetings. Credit analysis and fiscal responsibility are so boring! I imagine he misses A LOT of salient information here and there, so I wouldn’t give a handful of beans for what he thinks about anything.
Worst of all, he has two daughters. What kind of father makes a judgment at birth about his child’s potential based on imagined ideas of her/his intellectual deficiencies based on a select group of studies and ignoring countering studies? Answer: a crappy one, that’s what kind.
This world we live in is totally screwy. Why, right around the time Cavuto was pummeling Dr. Warren with questions about the why-no-Larry-likey situation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Turkish and Armenian diplomats at the signing of a historic agreement to establish diplomatic relations and open borders between the two nations after a century of enmity between their peoples. (A century! My math sense tells me that is about 10, no, 1000—um, no, I mean 100 years. That means it started in the stone age, scientifically speaking.) The agreement hit a snag, though, and it took Secretary Clinton and other mediators about three hours to help broker a solution.
In other words, this woman helped iron out part of a century old conflict in three hours. Now that’s my kind of ironing! (All in a day’s work.)
Compare just this one achievement to wet rag limp noodle full of promise but done nuthin’ yet Obama who won the Nobel Peace Prize the other day. What gives here?!? America used to be the place where achievement was rewarded, now all you’ve got to do is say the right thing and be in the correct political position to be recognized as some kind of prodigy.
If those lame-o things are your idea of what it takes to be ’successful’, and if you can’t restrain yourself from taking incompletely analyzed social science studies (blasted social “sciences”!), ignoring their severe limitations, then twisting their results to fit your bullying agenda, and if you can’t even mask your immature playground taunting with the regular leadership babble the rest of us are forced to utilize for the sake of fairness and civility, Larry Summers, well then, you can stuff it!
Conclusion
Larry Summers is a pig. My hypothesis was correct! I am good at, like, science ‘n stuff!
Well, this post must come to a close now. I’ve got my own ironing to do.
(*I am indecisive and can’t figure out which title to use—sheesh, I am such a girl!)
Rainbows and smiley faces to everyone!! 
4 Comments
Leave a comment
Loved it!!!!!!
(Not what I was expecting, but great none the less)
On people like Summers, I completely agree with your conclusions. I found it interesting that you mention the middle school studies, because puberty seems to be where things go haywire. No doubt, the smartest kids in my grade school class were all girls. Then we went to high school (Catholic – with boys and girls seperated). Many of those waaay smart girls mutated into bimbos, and I never understood what made them lose their academic drive, especially in math and science. They were taught by nuns all the way through…..
I never had the nerve to say, “What happened to you? You used to be smart….”
I’m also fascinated (and jealous) why women generally multi-task so much better than men. And my little girl is NOTHING like my sons were. I could have punched holes in paper bags, and they would have worn them without complaint…..Dressing my daughter is surreal….she insists that I pick out her clothes, only to shoot down my choices. And some days, she goes through costumes like Cher.
I hope you wouldn’t paint me with the same brush as Summers. But I don’t think it should be liablous to discuss differences in a constructive manner when the goal is greater understanding. I think there’s an element that wants to kill those conversations before they begin.
(*the title problem is ubiqitous….I actually have asked others to title my own work when I couldn’t decide, and it happens quite a bit;))
I am really glad you enjoyed it!!
It is good to discuss differences. I’m totally for that and would add that we should even be allowed to err and misinterpret occasionally without penalty. This is why I’m not a ‘feminist’ as typically defined today. I can’t stand people who lie in wait for someone to slip up just so they can pounce on them immediately. And then they chain that person to the dreaded “sexist” category, never to be released unless they grow a vagina, which is impossible of course. (It’s a pretty efficient system at least.)
Maybe there is *some* validity to the studies Summers was citing, but he obviously mentioned their results in such a flip and manipulative manner…. Plus I just hate him. I hate him for pretending to be an economist and public servant while pillaging our present and future citizens (I’m preaching to the choir about that, right?). That colors everything else I hear about him. Plus he’s a bully, in every forum he gets into….. Plus he falls asleep during work–seriously, who does that?!?1? What a piece of flotsam. A multi-multi-millionaire flotsam. It’s abhorrent.
This middle school thing is such a mystery. Well, not too much of a mystery–we all lived through it. I think there is some weird black hole in every middle school in this country that sucks the confidence out of girls. And when they do a 180, searching for some reason to resist the vortex’s pull, they struggle to find it. They just succumb. You must have had very level headed parents, especially mom, for your sister to be able to persist in physics. It’s the persistence, isn’t it–not primarily the proclivity?
Actually it’s getting better these days. I’ve been looking at different engineering summer camps for my older son (15 yrs old)–he went to one last year and we’re looking for an expanded experience–and you wouldn’t believe the push out there for girls to get into the field: girls-only programs, scholarships, etc.
LOL–the paper bag comment–with two boys I know exactly what you mean! Sometimes I wish I had my nieces around for a different outlook on things. That is another thing, actually–that girls are so associative and detail oriented. Oftentimes the workplace rewards competitiveness and aggression which is better suited to a person with a more single minded drive. It’s also handy to be able to switch focuses quickly, which boys appear to do more easily.
Yeah, I just hate Larry.
There are soooo many reasons to hate Summers and I must say, Obama is really starting to stink to me too, just for keeping him around…..
I didn’t go through female puberty, so I don’t know what it’s like….but I am compelled to relate this. With all three of my kids, I witnessed these “memory black-outs” at around five years old (when the permanent memory supposedly forms) My liitle girl is five now and just last week I mentioned Ian, the little boy who lived two doors away before we moved two years ago. Her very first friend. They learned to walk, talk and play together. The memories were GONE. She had no idea who I was talking about!!!!
That kind of drastic, “where the heck did that go???” changes seemed to happen to some of the girls I knew in school. Wierd.
What I remember most about my sister Maureen’s foray into Physics is that it wasn’t viewed as an epic struggle for her. She was smart, she had the interest….I remember my father suggesting Physics (pure science) would give her more career choices than an industry-specific engineering program. According to her, most of the boys were glad to have at least one girl in their classes. I think the hardest part for her was the actual study. And in retrospect, I must give my parents credit because her gender was never put into the equation (“don’t waste our money!” was, however).
I think there’s a difference between breaking down barriers of exclusion and trying to stuff square pegs in round holes. I have never once heard anyone decry the absence of female plumbers, because everyone knows girls really, really hate getting shit on their hands. Yet these same people sound like conspiracy theorists when confronted by imbalances in other arenas.
I remember when I was in tech school, 20-plus years ago, there was a computer programing class (all men) and a word-processing class (all women) and I used to ask the girls, “why not switch to programming? You could write code 20 times faster than any of the guys!!!” I wasn’t able to persuade anyone to switch and I don’t think it was self-esteem issues, it was a lack of interest.
I think there are yin and yang forces at work on all of us that we can’t just wish away….
To me, Elizabeth Warren is special because she’s special. I doubt that simply giving women scholarships to study economics would produce more minds like hers. She understands, and can ariculate, what we believe in theory and what happens in practice. How ideologies must be tempered to work in real life. She should be running the show on financial reform and she’s being completely marginalized because she’s a woman. It’s a national disgrace and worse yet, not listening to her will be our downfall.
P.S. Cool blog, SNK
Thanks!
I get what you are saying about the square pegs. It can’t be forced, and by the time it gets to the workplace, contriving a gender mix ratio IS forcing it. It has to come within one’s self and from the right home environment–both the home of the girl growing up and the home she has if/when she has a spouse. You can’t affect those things through creating new university policies.
Elizabeth Warren is totally amazing. That’s why she’ll never get anywhere in government, ha ha.