

Summers Vindicated (again) - ivankirigin
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/summers-vindica.html

======
helveticaman
I guess the "politically correct < correct" debacle is the one thing nowadays
future generations will look back on our time and say, "These people were
vehemently retarded about some things. [1]" This is the current case of
"emperor's new clothes". I for one prefer to have intellectual self-respect
and avert my gaze, _even though I'm Hispanic._ My IQ, as given by race, should
be around 93, and I still can't put up with this nonsense. I'd benefit if
every brain was suddenly standardized to match that of Anglo-Saxons, but that
doesn't mean I'm going to lie to myself. If I have to lie to myself, I'm going
to do it about bullshit that isn't quite so pungent.

The evidence in favor of cognitive differences across race and gender is
enormous; in fact, it couldn't reasonably expected to be any greater. Hundreds
of millions of standardized tests, tens of thousands of autopsies, brain
scans, hormonal testing, etc. They all align. Not only that, but it's plain
even to small children that not all humans were created equal. We're past the
point of an emperor's new clothes dilemma; at this point, the emperor is butt-
ass naked, trudging through snow, losing toes to frostbite, with big
billboards of closeups of his genitals all over the place. I don't publicly
call out the nakedness, but I'll at least avert my gaze.

[1] They'll say retarded because it will be the most appropriate term for
something that is slow and stupid, and because they won't be chastised for
saying it.

~~~
time_management
"The evidence in favor of cognitive differences across race and gender is
enormous".

That differences in realized cognitive ability exist is without dispute.
Evidence for a genetic basis for these differences is pretty much nonexistent.
The Flynn effect basically shreds the credibility of any argument from so-
called "g". Disadvantaged groups invariably score 10-20 points lower than the
dominant groups within societies, and when members of both emigrate to other
countries, the gap vanishes.

Frankly, I'm pretty sure that my barbaric, 7th-century European ancestors
would have tested very poorly on any IQ test.

~~~
helveticaman
The genetic basis is there. First, I suspect the Flynn effect is simply
natural selection in modern society; after all, if environment changes in the
Galapagos can change the shape of birds beaks in a few generations,
industrialization should make people better at desk jobs. And according to
Gregory Clark, this has happened to Anglo-Saxons between the 1300s and the
1800s. [1] The same appears to have happened to Ashkenazi Jews and East
Asians.[2] Keep in mind they, too, were once very disadvantaged in American
society, but there's no keeping them down; both groups are richer than whites
now, and had to contend with heavy discrimination on their way to riches. In
fact, because of the belief all races should be equally represented, Asian
students are heavily penalized in college admissions to make room for African
Americans and Hispanics. [3] Finally, I wouldn't go so far as saying
emigration eliminates gaps; emigrants aren't necessarily representative of a
group, as they're the ones who are ambitious or desperate enough to want to
leave. Mexican immigrants in the United States do not form an accurate cross-
section of Mexican culture. Nigerian immigrants in United States have the
highest rate of PhDs and Master degrees per capita [4], but that has a lot to
do with immigration policies. It's a lot easier to get into the States with a
Masters or a PhD, so there's selection at hand.

[1][http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/clark_evol...](http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/clark_evolution.pdf)
[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence>
[3][http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=h...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fopr.princeton.edu%2Ffaculty%2FTje%2FEspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf&ei=uziPSLHMJZSUeur3gKwH&usg=AFQjCNFM9ICtMOYFosbcEEFCncLmIX26UA&sig2=kHO7HZtc2qijBQqh6LaYlw)
[4][http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/05/nigerians-are-most-
educat...](http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/05/nigerians-are-most-educated-
nationality.html)

~~~
time_management
Why do you assume that the changes in the Galapagos occurred over "a few
generations"? My understanding was that the separation occurred thousands of
years ago.

If industrialization has been driving human evolution, it has probably not
been in a positive direction. Fertility and IQ are negatively correlated in
contemporary industrialized societies, so if anything, this would propel the
opposite of the Flynn effect. The dark comedy Idiocracy is essentially about
this.

~~~
helveticaman
The separation indeed occurred long ago, and the most dramatic evolutionary
changes happened then. But the populations on the Galapagos continue to make
observable evolutionary changes because of weather conditions.

[http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=115&...](http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=115&articleID=1472):

"Recently, the Grants witnessed another form of natural selection acting on
the medium ground finch: competition from bigger, stronger cousins. In 1982, a
third finch, the large ground finch, came to live on Daphne Major. The stout
bills of these birds resemble the business end of a crescent wrench. Their
arrival was the first such colonization recorded on the Galápagos in nearly a
century of scientific observation. 'We realized,' Peter Grant says, 'we had a
very unusual and potentially important event to follow.' For 20 years, the
large ground finch coexisted with the medium ground finch, which shared the
supply of large seeds with its bigger-billed relative. Then, in 2002 and 2003,
another drought struck. None of the birds nested that year, and many died out.
Medium ground finches with large bills, crowded out of feeding areas by the
more powerful large ground finches, were hit particularly hard.

When wetter weather returned in 2004, and the finches nested again, the new
generation of the medium ground finch was dominated by smaller birds with
smaller bills, able to survive on smaller seeds. This situation, says Peter
Grant, marked the first time that biologists have been able to follow the
complete process of an evolutionary change due to competition between species
and the strongest response to natural selection that he had seen in 33 years
of tracking Galápagos finches."

I'm also aware of the negative correlation between IQ and Fertility; however,
this is not without explanation. IQ correlates with k-strategy (bigger
investments in fewer children that are slow to develop), and k-strategy
correlates with having few children. [1] R-strategists have lower IQs and
higher fertility rates. In the society outlined by Gregory Clark in his paper,
wealth correlated with reproductive success. Right now, we live in an
anomalous situation where food is not a limiting factor. But this is coming to
an end; food prices have increased dramatically in recent years, with no sign
of falling any time soon. This phenomenon is not new, and illustrates the
possible advantages of r-selection.

From Clark's article: "The strength of the selection process through survival
of the richest also seems to have varied depending on the circumstances of
settled agrarian societies. Thus in the frontier conditions of New France
(Quebec) in the seventeenth century where land was abundant, population
densities low, and wages extremely high the group that reproduced most
successfully was the poorest and the most illiterate."

[http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism...](http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf)

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-selection>

------
mynameishere
Men fall to the extremes of every pursuit. Even dressmaking, cooking, and
interior design. Both testosterone and a greater likelihood of psychosis would
account for this.

------
DaniFong
The article mentions 'Note that we are assuming that mathematical ability is
normally distributed - we know the data fit this distribution around the mean
but we don't know much about what happens at the very top.'

Which is precisely the thing being talked about. Why is this being voted up?
The post isn't a relevant part of the discussion, and has little to no bearing
on the articles it links to...

------
dissenter
Generations from now our scholars will be lumped in the same category as
alchemists and geocentrists---much to their discredit.

~~~
william42
Don't you mean "our media"?

~~~
ivankirigin
Larry Summers was effectively forced to step down by a large body of highly
educated academics at Harvard that reacted emotionally to statistically
accurate statements. The media didn't help though.

~~~
jacobolus
That is nonsense. Summers was forced to step down because he picked fights (on
hiring/firing/promotions, spending priorities, the balance of power between
different parts of the university, etc.) with the majority of the faculty, and
forced out some wonderful and very popular members of the community. He tried
to run the university like a CEO would run a corporation, and learned that a
faculty made up of many of the the top scholars in every field isn’t easily
pushed around. The public gaffes were just the icing on the cake.

Also, in being “forced to step down”, he was given a University Professorship:
not the roughest of deals, to be sure.

~~~
byrneseyeview
Are you referring to Cornell West? My impression was that Cornell West was not
bothering to show up for class and grade papers, and that Summers asked him to
do the job he'd been hired to do. I guess that could make someone unpopular.

~~~
jacobolus
No, I’m not. However, “not bothering to show up for class and grade papers” is
grossly inaccurate. Here’s a link to West’s radio interview with Tavis Smiley
at the time:
[http://www.npr.org/programs/tavis/features/2002/jan/020107.w...](http://www.npr.org/programs/tavis/features/2002/jan/020107.west.html)

~~~
byrneseyeview
"In 2000 economist and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers became
president of Harvard. In a private meeting with West, Summers allegedly
rebuked West for neglecting his scholarship, and spending too much time on his
economically profitable projects.[5] Summers allegedly suggested that West
produce an academic book befitting his professorial position. West had written
several books, some of them widely cited, but his recent output consisted
primarily of co-written and edited volumes. According to some reports, Summers
also objected to West's production of a CD, the critically panned Sketches of
My Culture, and to his political campaigning."

And

"In October, he had the temerity to meet with Cornel West and suggest that he
turn his hand to some serious scholarship-West's most recent production was a
rap CD called Sketches of My Culture-and lead the way in fighting the scandal
of grade inflation at Harvard, where one of every two grades is an A or A-.
What an outrage! West went to sulk in his tent, announcing on the way that he
was applying for another year's leave of absence (he had just returned from
one) and letting it be known that he might just up and leave Harvard."

To whom were you referring?

 _Edit: I accidentally misspelled the professor's name in my previous comment.
He is, of course, Cornel and not Cornell._

~~~
jacobolus
First: whoops, I edited my comment while you were replying. Second: Summers
was clearly in the wrong at the beginning of his spat with West, who was at
the time a University Professor (an extreme honor, which places a professor
outside any department, and accords him the ability to teach whatever he
likes); West’s outrage at Summers’ disrespect was predictable and easily
avoidable.

There were several resignations of much-loved deans, &c. in the last couple of
years of Summers’ presidency. Go read through the Crimson’s coverage of
Summers’ departure if you want a reasonable semi-outsider’s (students aren’t
party to internal faculty disputes) look.

Edit: that National Review article you quote is garbage: _“The unpalatable
truth is that Afro-American Studies is a pseudo-discipline—an academic ghetto
constructed to accommodate the beneficiaries of ‘affirmative action’—and that
the celebrated occupants of Harvard's department are second-class scholars
with first-class salaries and perquisites.”_

~~~
byrneseyeview
What was summer wrong about? West was an embarrassment -- too busy writing a
bad rap album to publish any actual work? It's not like they have accounting
professors who are busy playing country music or death metal.

I hadn't heard about the other deans. I can understand Harvard professors
being huffy when someone tries to make them behave differently, but that
doesn't tell me it's wrong to ask -- it could be, but perhaps those professors
were too egotistical or cozy. Very hard to say.

Is the _National Review_ article factually incorrect? What parts of my life
have been improved by the diligent and industrious researchers of the world's
Afro-American Studies departments?

~~~
jacobolus
I don’t think we’ll get anywhere with this discussion—you have an existing
prejudice about those involved which causes you to toss around trivializing
sarcastic insults of Professor West (have you read any of his “actual” work?)
and Harvard professors in general (“huffy”, “egotistical”, “cozy”? “behave
differently?”).

And no, it’s not “factually incorrect”: it’s an opinion piece. It is, however,
garbage.

~~~
byrneseyeview
It's more of a post-judice. I notice that in disputes with Larry Summers,
Summers offers lots of data and the other side offers lots of emotion. I mean,
the Big Stink over Summers was when he mentioned a fact about the standard
deviations of test scores, and a professor in the audience swooned ("I
would've either blacked out or thrown up.")

So yes, I think referring to the emotional aspect is important, here. People
nail Summers for mentioning data they don't like -- which is probably why he
gave up on academia and government and moved closer to finance.

I would like to know what about the article is garbage. My request for ways in
which the legitimate field of Afro-American studies has improved my life still
stands. If you can't discern a single logical or factual error in the entire
_National Review_ article, but you persist in, er, trashing it, shouldn't I
just accept that you're reenacting the typical disagree-with-Larry pattern?

~~~
jacobolus
No, Summers was not canned because of his comments about women in science (at
least that was not the primary reason; it certainly didn’t help him out). That
was the whole point of this sub-thread. “People” didn’t nail Summers for
mentioning data: that is a straw-man mischaracterization of any serious part
of the dispute with Summers, even of the dispute about women in science.
Summers did not give up on academia: he holds a University Professorship and
teaches courses.

But more to the point, you are conflating three separate disputes, and trying
to change the subject as a way to dodge my questions. But again, this
discussion is going nowhere, and is therefore pointless.

As for the National Review article, it adds no substance, and makes no attempt
to engage with any of the discussion it supposedly disagrees with, and instead
makes a classic troll argument of empty epithets. It has no factual
inaccuracies, because it not arguing facts. (Note: it does not take factual
inaccuracies to make a stupid argument.) It is garbage, because the only
possible reactions to reading it are “Yeah, they’re right. Those liberals
_are_ just useless elitist leeches on society,” or else “No, they’re wrong.
Studying how society works is important,” neither of which is a worthwhile
reaction (e.g., “Hey! That article taught me something I didn’t already know,”
or “Wow! That article really clarified that concept I was having trouble
understanding.”).

------
time_management
The issue is one of variance, not mean. When social intelligence is included,
I think the average woman is probably smarter than the average man, but men
have more variance and are thus more prominent at the extremes.

I doubt that there is a strong genetic basis for this. It is probably due, in
large part, to the ways boys and girls are raised. Speaking very broadly, and
acknowledging the existence of counterexamples; boys are raised to be smart,
while girls are raised to be social and cooperative. This means that gifted
male children can more easily zip ahead in school, but that the stragglers
fall further behind in academic and social skills... and are more likely to
end up becoming criminals. A lot of girls feel guilty and insecure about being
"too smart" compared to their peers, which holds them back.

