What happened to Lawrence Summers?

Lawrence Summers served as the 27th president of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. He resigned after a firestorm of controversy arose when he suggested that factors other than sexism might explain the predominance of men in the hard sciences (mathematics, engineering, physics, and so forth).

On January 14, 2005 he gave a speech and said (in part):

It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population.

He went on to say:

If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it's not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it's talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out.

So what does all this mean?

Consider this graph, stolen from La Griffe du Lion:



Even without a statistical difference in mean intelligence scores between men and women, the variation in intelligence scores has a big impact out on the edges. If you're looking for people who are 4 to 5 standard deviations more intelligent than the mean, the difference in variability means you're going to be (inevitably and unintentionally) selecting for men.

La Griffe du Lion's interview subject points out that any randomly selected woman has at least a 45% chance of being more intelligent than any randomly selected man. So if you are looking for smart people, it's not very productive or helpful to simply look for men. But once you have selected your 4- or 5-sigma highly intelligent outliers, there's a strong probability this group will turn out to be dominated by men.

Let's say you are looking to staff a department with people having an I.Q. of 120 or higher. The pool of people with an I.Q. of 120 or higher is going to be about 63% men and 37% women. But you can't simply choose men randomly, because (again) any random woman has a 45% chance of being smarter than any other random man.

This counterintuitive result? A perfectly fair, sex-neutral screening process for people of high intelligence will result in a pool of people containing nearly 2 men for each woman.

This is what tripped up Dr. Summers. He was saying that the difference in result (the number of men versus women employed in the hard sciences) was not proof of systemic sexism. There was no conspiracy or false consciousness behind the easily measured sex ratios; instead, it was a natural outgrowth of the difference in statistical variability between the sexes.

He started his speech by saying:

To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and in agriculture.

This attack on the basic assumptions of radical feminism (that differences in result can be explained only by group oppression) was a step too far. He came under fire, apparently lost the confidence of the Harvard faculty and was eventually forced to resign.

Dr. Summers' point needs more study and consideration. Even if we assume society (government) should try to encourage fairness and justice, it's important to understand what, exactly, fairness actually looks like. If basic male/female biology leads to the natural result of more men than women at the high (and low) ends of the intelligence spectrum, is it truly fair to strive for a 50/50 balance?

Wright vs. Davis

As the manifesto says, it's all about the software.

Everybody has a hardware platform challenge; whether it's something trivial like unruly hair, a correctable problem like nearsightedness, a manageable problem like diabetes, a physically debilitating problem like paralysis, or a first-impressions problem like skin shade.

More important is the software that a person chooses to run. Good software (worldview, ethics, knowledge, and choices) can overcome almost any hardware deficit.

Spook86 highlights the difference between the software distributed by Barack Obama's "pastor", Jeremiah Wright, and the software run by General Benjamin O. Davis Jr., "the first African-American to reach flag rank in the U.S. Air Force."

Obama tried to excuse Wright's words by highlighting the times in which Wright lived:

But as someone who grew up in the hate-filled and racist 1960s, it was understandable that he was bound to mature into his present angry anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-white mentality. [Emphasis added.]

Let's focus on that word bound. Obama is saying that Wright had no choice; given his circumstance, his hardware could only react in one way.

General Davis' success shows that's simply not true:

General Davis, who passed away on Independence Day 2002, was a product of the hate-filled and racist times that spawned Reverend Wright’s anger. But the obstacles of that era had a far different impact on General Davis; he not only overcame the evils of racism and segregation, he shattered them, opening doors of opportunity and equality for thousands who followed.

[....]

Entering West Point in 1932, the younger Davis was the only black member of his class. Expecting to be judged on ability and merit, his hopes were quickly dashed. Davis was “shunned” by his white classmates. Few of them spoke to him outside the line of duty. He never had a roommate. He ate his meals alone.

Rather than driving him from the academy (as some of his classmates hoped), the experience pushed Davis to excel. He graduated in 1936, 35th in a class of 276 cadets, and earning the respect of those who had ostracized him.

[....]

General Davis understood the dark side of America’s soul. But he also understood a nation that rewards perseverance, hard work and character. Rather than condemning his country with hate speech (or pressing for government paternalism disguised as reform), General Davis fought for—and achieved—lasting change.

Ultimately, Wright's view of America is wrong and should be condemned. He does have a choice; he has too many successful peers for him to escape responsibility for his beliefs and rhetoric. Obama missed an opportunity to condemn hatefulness and other maladaptive software.

Chicago Boys

Via Kim, now comes Guy Sorman writing in the Winter 2008 City Journal. He contrasts the prosperity enjoyed by countries that follow individualist, free-market, capitalist economics versus those mired in collective, socialist policies:

There are now two South Americas,” says Chilean economist Rolf Lüders, a former prime minister under Augusto Pinochet. The old South America, which remains mired in populism and Marxist rhetoric, includes Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The new South America is democratic and free-market-oriented, and includes Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. Chile is undoubtedly the most prosperous and stable country in the group, with an annual real growth rate averaging 5.5 percent over the last 15 years and a per-capita annual income of $12,000, the highest in Latin America.

Interestingly, it's not the means by which the countries chose their policies, but what the policies actually are. Augusto Pinochet took over Chile's government by force, rather than by following the will of the people. But Milton Friedman found moral cover for working with Pinochet:

Harshly criticized in the U.S. for his “collaboration” with the dictator, Friedman responded by asking whether he should have let the patient—the Chilean economy—die instead.

The Chileans themselves believe that Pinochet was good for Chile. We don't have to approve of his brutal repressive methods of rule to recognize the lasting value of the policies he implemented.

James Lileks Worries:

Speaking as an utter amateur, I’m worried less about a recession than inflation. I’m worried most about a recession, inflation AND a jolly round of trade wars, coupled with fragile banks, overcapacity, diminished consumer confidence and aggressive messianic collectivism. Something about that smells familiar. I love studying the thirties and forties, but not first hand.

(emphasis added)

The Constitution

Now comes David Mamet, writing in the Village Voice, with an excellent description of why we have three branches of government:

For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.

To that end, the Constitution separates the power of the state into those three branches which are for most of us (I include myself) the only thing we remember from 12 years of schooling.

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.

I would only add that we were amazingly lucky / divinely blessed to have a man of character, George Washington, as our first president. He really could have been king; after liberating the colonies from England he could do no wrong in the site of the people.

But after two Presidential terms Washington stepped down from the office and went home. It took nearly 150 years for another president to stay in office more than three terms, violating Washington's precedent. A Constitutional amendment made sure that wouldn't happen again.

Mamet goes on to write:

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?

[....]

Strand unacquainted bus travelers in the middle of the night, and what do you get? A lot of bad drama, and a shake-and-bake Mayflower Compact. Each, instantly, adds what he or she can to the solution. Why? Each wants, and in fact needs, to contribute—to throw into the pot what gifts each has in order to achieve the overall goal, as well as status in the new-formed community. And so they work it out.

See also that most magnificent of schools, the jury system, where, again, each brings nothing into the room save his or her own prejudices, and, through the course of deliberation, comes not to a perfect solution, but a solution acceptable to the community—a solution the community can live with.

Society works best when Government, the organization claiming a monopoly on the lawful use of force, is limited to the smallest scope possible. Far better to let individuals make their own choices in life, following their own interests.

Candy, Red and Rattlesnake Mountains

Took the dog for a walk today up Badger Mountain. Badger is part of the Horse Heavens range of extinct volcanoes. Here you see Candy Mountain in the foreground, Red Mountain just behind it and to the left, and Rattlesnake Mountain in the background.

Camera: CANON POWERSHOT G5
Taken on 2008:03:15 17:45:42
Exposure: 0.005s (1/200)
Focal Length: 28.81mm
F/Stop: f/5.600

46º 14' 10.21" N 119º 19' 50.31" W

Candy Mountain at Sunrise

Camera: Canon PowerShot G5
Exposure Time: 1/80 sec.
Lens Aperture: F/5.6
Focal Length: 7 mm
Date: 3/12/2008 7:51 AM

46º 14' 33.10" N 119º 20' 13.37" W

Sane Parties

Now comes Orson Scott Card, contemplating the presidential primaries, and grumbling that "there's not one candidate who comes close to representing my positions on all the issues I care about." He goes on to write:

Here's the source of our problems. The best candidates rarely run because they are too moderate to be chosen by either party.

And the parties have now become so dominated by their lunatic fringes that you have to accept an insane melange of doctrines in order to be considered a true conservative or a real progressive.

His "insane melange" of doctrines sorts itself out when you consider each doctrine in terms of progressivism versus individualism. Recall that progressive philosophy is "totalitarian in that it views everything as political" and wants the state to take "responsibility for all aspects of life." An individualist identity rivals the "organic unity of the body politic" and is "therefore defined as the enemy."

Mr. Card asks

Let's say you think abortion should be restricted to only those cases where the fetus is nonviable, and only when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake. That would be my position, too.

So what rule of logic, what great universal principle then requires you also to think it's a great idea for assault weapons to be available to the general public, or for any clown to carry a handgun concealed on his person? How do these topics overlap?

The individualist holds the right to life as the most fundamental individual right possible. When the right to life of an unborn individual conflicts with the convenience rights of a mother, then the right to life must inevitably prevail.

The individualist also believes that the individual is primarily responsible for self-protection. That means accepting the fact that some predators have more brute strength than others, celebrating the fact that humans are naturally tool users, and shunning the mental parasite of hoplophobia.

Mr Card goes on:

It goes the other way. Suppose you absolutely oppose the death penalty -- which, by the way, I do, though only because I believe that there have been too many miscarriages of justice to entrust our police and prosecutors to tell the whole truth to juries. Still, by what remote logic should this mean that I must also be in favor of erasing the privileged position of marriage (i.e., a permanent heterosexual union recognized by the community) under our laws?

Yet if you're running for President as a Democrat, you have to be "right" on the death penalty and on "gay marriage" or you might as well not run. And this year, opposition to protecting the world from insane jihadists has been added to the Democratic Party's list.

Many progressives oppose the death penalty because they don't want to accept the individual responsibility of the criminal. Either society failed to protect the victim, or the criminal himself is a victim. No individual is held accountable; instead, society (the collective "organic unity of the body politic") has failed.

Some progressive "gay rights" activists want to change marriage law as a shortcut to acceptance of their choices. Today they suffer from the fact that their lifestyles do not mesh with traditional morality. They think that denying the privileged status of heterosexuals will eliminate disapproval of homosexuals.

(Of course, as an individualist, the legal status of homosexual unions doesn't matter at all to my opinion of the morality of homosexuality.)

Progressives may dimly perceive the threat from "insane jihadists," but they are more interested in dealing with the enemy close to home--those individualists who threaten the unity of the body politic. Besides, their worldview isn't completely incompatible with the Islamofascists--they both strive for a unified society where the individual submits to the authority of the collective. The details of that society can be worked out later.

I'm a conservative because I stand for the classical liberal notion of the primacy of the individual over the Crown (or collective). Maybe that puts me on the "lunatic fringe" of today's conservative movement, but that's where I'm at.

Badger Mountain

Camera: CANON POWERSHOT A410
Taken on 2008:03:07 18:44:25
Exposure: 0.020s (1/50)
Focal Length: 5.40mm
F/Stop: f/2.800

46º 15' 56.74" N 119º 17' 56.41" W

Harvard's Non-Mistake

Via Insty, now comes Ali Eteraz saying that Harvard made a mistake. I must humbly disagree. As I wrote earlier, Harvard is accommodating a reasonable request made on behalf of individual women.

Reasonable requests should be accommodated, even if they're motivated by individual religious belief. So that brings up the obvious question -- what's reasonable?

A reasonable request for accommodation asks for a peripheral change in the situation. In other words, it's reasonable to ask for changes that don't undercut basic principles or fundamental aspects of an activity.

By this standard, reasonable requests might include:

• Ethical vegetarians--those who avoid consuming animal products--could reasonably ask for vegan menu selections at a dormitory dining hall.
• Jews could reasonably ask for their exams to be scheduled outside their Saturday Sabbath hours.
• Sikhs could reasonably ask to carry symbolic Kirpans (daggers) in school--assuming they're unsharpened, kept concealed, and no more useful as a weapon than a set of keys or plastic butter knife.
  

We cross the line into unreasonableness when the request clearly infringes on the rights of others, or when the request eviscerates the core of the activity. Unreasonable requests might include:

• Ethical vegetarians demanding that the dormitory dining hall stop serving all animal products.
• Jews demanding that no exams be scheduled on Sabbath, even if no Jews are impacted.
• Sikhs demanding to carry sharp, weapon-effective Kirpans.
  
• Muslim women asking to skip core medical hygiene procedures in a hospital setting.
  

In my earlier post I should probably have mentioned my personal interest in this question.

I've a Seventh-day Adventist. We believe in observing the Jewish Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. If I were attending Harvard and a test was scheduled on Saturday afternoon, I would ask to take the test either before or after the Sabbath hours.

On the other hand, certain jobs in society require working every day. People must monitor electric generating stations on Saturday. Police, fire fighters, doctors, nurses and other critical services need to be staffed on Sabbath. If I were to choose careers in those critical industries I would expect to pull my Saturday shifts like everyone else.

Sunset over Rattlesnake Mountain

Camera: CANON POWERSHOT A410
Taken on 2008:03:04 18:45:36
Exposure: 0.002s (1/500)
Focal Length: 5.40mm
F/Stop: f/2.800

46º 21' 4.31" N 119º 16' 24.12" W

Reasonable Accommodation

Now comes Harvard University, accommodating a request by Muslim women for sex-segregated exercise hours.

In response to a request by female Muslim students, Harvard University has created women-only workout hours at one of its campus gyms. [....]

Since Jan. 28, the Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center has been open only to women from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Mondays.

The change was prompted by a request from the Harvard College Women's Center, which was approached by six female Muslim students, said Robert Mitchell, communications director of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Unlike other accommodations with Islam, I think Harvard made the right call.

• While inspired by Muslim sensitivities, the women-only hours were not limited to Muslim women.

"It was done for religious purposes, but it's not closed to other women who may want to participate," [Mitchell] said.

• Each individual woman is still free to exercise in a co-ed environment if she chooses. Harvard is not enforcing Muslim morality on non-believers.

• Harvard isn't displacing men at popular, high-traffic times.

"Rather than a genuine attempt to provide comfortable workout hours for women and religious observers who might be uncomfortable working out around men, this policy beats around the bush by offering the least utilized and the most inconvenient hours and gym space," [Nicholas Wells, Harvard Junior] said. "No one benefits from women’s only hours."

• The accommodation is being made on a trial basis; it will be re-evaluated at the end of the semester. My guess is that the women-only hours will only continue if the facilities are actually utilized by women during those hours.
  
• Women and men do not have to exercise together in order to benefit from that exercise. Contrast that with the request of women medical students to not wash or expose their forearms; hygiene is a fundamental part of medical care.
  

Individual choice is preserved and Muslim women are free to exercise in a comfortable context. Everyone wins.

OK, maybe not everyone wins. It sounds to me like Nicholas Wells is disappointed that he can no longer ogle his favorite Muslim exercising hottie. Ah well, nothing is ever perfect in this world.

Judaic Feminism

Here's another example of what Rowan Williams should be saying. God has given women inheritance, property, and rights of self-determination.

Shortly after the Exodus, the daughters of a recently-deceased Jew came to Moses. We read the story in Numbers 27:1-11:

1 The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, belonged to the clans of Manasseh son of Joseph. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. They approached 2 the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly, and said, 3 "Our father died in the desert. He was not among Korah's followers, who banded together against the LORD, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. 4 Why should our father's name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father's relatives."

Here are four women who are about to be dispossessed because they're female. Yes, there had been a recent rebellion where people died and forfeited their children's legacies, but this wasn't relevant to the current case.

5 So Moses brought their case before the LORD 6 and the LORD said to him, 7 "What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father's relatives and turn their father's inheritance over to them.

Unlike other founders of religions we could name, Moses didn't make a snap decision. He took the question to God. And God sided with the women! More than that, He laid out a series of inheritance contingencies:

8 "Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers. 11 If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses.' "

Those instructions are pretty clear. God Himself is saying that some estates are to be turned over to the daughters--the females. He could have said to turn the estates over to the husbands of the daughters, but He didn't. He clearly said that the estates should go to the daughters if they had no brothers.

Even married women can be involved in the public marketplace. In Proverbs 31:10-31 we read about a "wife of noble character". She buys a vineyard with her own money:

16 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

She is a shrewd businesswoman:

18 She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.

She sells what she makes to the merchants:

24 She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.

This doesn't sound to me like a woman who can only interact with the world through her male relatives or guardians!

Bottom line: in Judaism (and later Christianity) women are people too. They're not property, to be used and disposed of at the whim of men.

Sunset over Mt. Saint Helens

Camera: CANON POWERSHOT A410
Taken on 2006:10:12 17:49:21
Exposure: 0.001s (1/1000)
Focal Length: 9.77mm
F/Stop: f/5.600
46º 13' 47.28" N 121º 59' 36.96" W