Speaking of what is and is not politically correct in academia, there are a lot of interesting posts over at Volokh’s place on the “racist” email incident at Harvard. I agree with Eugene:
I, for one, am disheartened that — for perfectly understandable reasons — a student at a research university feels the need to apologize for having the temerity to be open to scientific evidence on a scientific question, and for deciding to express her openness to her friends.
Now there was something “sad and unfortunate” and lacking in “responsibility” in the circulation of the original e-mail: As best I can tell, the recipients forwarded the sender’s e-mail without the sender’s permissions. That is generally not proper with regard to personal mail, especially personal mail that refers back to an earlier conversation and may be hard to evaluate fully without knowing that conversation. If that were all that the Dean was condemning, I would agree with her. But my sense is that the Dean is condemning the sender, not the forwarders.
Hernstein and Murray were unjustly condemned for The Bell Curve
I have no idea whether blacks are on average less intelligent, or more intelligent, than whites (and of course there are different flavors of intelligence, so they could be smarter in some ways, and less so in others). But I’m open to believing that either could be true, because it seems obvious that blacks are unlikely to be exactly as intelligent as whites on every axis. In order to believe that they are, you have to believe that intelligence is not heritable (i.e., you have to be a leftist who denies human nature and believes in the tabula rasa). Because any trait that is heritable, like height, or athletic ability or…skin color, is going to have different averages within a population.
But while it would be ludicrous to argue that blacks don’t have darker skin, on average, or that Inuit tend to be more stout than Kenyans, on average, to have such a discussion about intelligence is completely taboo in academia. Stephen Jay Gould took this to the greatest heights in his Mismeasure of Man
Do I think that such research is socially useful? No, not particularly, but that doesn’t mean that I oppose its being done, as long as it isn’t with my money. But the left considers it socially dangerous research. It’s clear why they consider it so, but the reason that I consider it pure research (that is, not having any societal implications) is that unlike them, I am an individualist, whereas they are collectivists. I treat people as individuals, whereas they treat them as members of favored or disfavored groups. So for them, any research that can result in a group being favored or disfavored, particularly if it isn’t derivative from their own notions of social history, is beyond the pale.
Me? I say what difference does it make how smart the average black is? I’m uninterested in averages — I only want to know how smart the particular black that I’m considering hiring is, and I don’t particularly care whether or not she’s black. Suppose we did find out that blacks were ten points higher, or lower, than whites? Does it mean that we’re going to educate them differently simply because they’re black? I would certainly hope not, but that’s the instinct of the collectivist.
And of course, this is why I find complaints from the left about the “war on science” by the “right” so tendentious. Because in many ways, theirs is even more serious, and unrelenting. Trofim Lysenko, or Margaret Mead, or Margaret Sanger were certainly not right wingers.
[Update a few minutes later]
This seems somewhat related: Why can’t a man be more like a woman?
Larry Summers got into trouble for daring to think something even less radical: that the standard deviation of intelligence could be different between the sexes. I wonder how high up the list of statistical moments you have to go before the political correctness police stops noticing, maybe skewness or kurtosis? I suspect skewness is enough, because simply having to know what that term means is a sort of an idiot-hurdle.
Why can’t a man be more like a woman?
Interesting link, but the article seems to misrepresent the thrust of the research, if the BBC article it links to is to be believed. The idea is not to ‘treat’ men in general, but people with schizophrenia.
The most relevant conclusion seems to be that hormones are behind certain behavioral traits, not societal gender stereotyping, as much as some theorists might wish it to be otherwise.
Supposedly testosterone patches lead women to show more masculine behaviour, including an increased libido. Very educational if you ask me. As a wise man once said the idea that male libido can be easily contained is based on underestimates of it. 🙂
My problem with The Bell Curve wasn’t its statements about race, but its overemphasis on IQ. I don’t buy the idea that some radical Marxist who tests well is somehow destined to a higher status than a hard-working and wise laborer with an IQ in the 110 range.
Except, of course, when we’re funding the Marxist by throwing tax money at universities, which are hardly an example of the free market at work.
It’s strange that Marxist ideology doesn’t permit looking into the differences among races, when Marx himself was so rabidly racist toward blacks in particular.
Two groups can differ in their attributes??? We certainly can’t have that. We need to tell congress so they can pass a law saying it ain’t so.
I’m a fat people, so I would certainly like them to pass a law saying I’m thin. Otherwise, people might treat me badly or something.
The last 30 years and perhaps the next 20 will be considered some of the least free in the west since the church was burning heretics. Even the Victorian preoccupation with the suppression of sexual symbols and speech pales in comparison.
Of course, these days the reason isn’t religious. Control of racial speech makes it impossible for the opponents of the left to even discuss policies like immigration, freedom of discussion in the classroom and the modern racial quota system. Which in turn makes the “race as class” marxist political power machine far less vulnerable.
Doesn’t the “war on science” come from the whole ID versus Darwin argument? I haven’t seen any other reference to it. It’s not so much “the right” that was at war, it was fundamentalist christians who wanted to push a phony theory into science classes.
No, it’s not just evolution. It’s also abortion and stem cells, not to mention AGW.
The last 30 years and perhaps the next 20 will be considered some of the least free in the west since the church was burning heretics.
Seriously? Where is this hysteria coming from?
It’s not so much “the right” that was at war, it was fundamentalist christians who wanted to push a phony theory into science classes.
ID is a lousy compromise. Fundamentalist Christians should spend more of their time being salt and light to their communities instead of trying to develop and promote pseudo-science. That said, I think most of their concerns about teaching evolution in schools would be alleviated as long as the words ‘theory of’ were consistently associated with the teaching of evolution.
Sorry, Rand. What’s AGW?
AGW is “anthropogenic global warming”, namely the hypothesis that the Earth is warming significantly due in great part to human activities.
Thanks Karl. Ah yes, global warming… Since I’m not a scientist, I can only form an opinion based on what I read or see.
Hmmm… Lots of melting going on, but it could be just a normal phenomenon of End Of Days.
Frankly, I’m more concerned about the near epidemic numbers of early childhood asthma. My 4 year old has this, and it doesn’t run is either of our families. I’d love to see a comparison between west coast children and east coast children. Power plant emissions and all.
Stem cells? I never use ’em, but I don’t think a non-viable fetus would care one way or the other.
Abortion? I’ve learned not to go there.
Power plant (stationalry source) emissions are lower than at any point in your life in the US.
“emissions are lower than at any point in your life in the US.”
See, I told you I wasn’t a scientist.
Lots of melting going on? It’s spring. So?
That’s it, it’s Global Spring.
Bennett,
The word “anthropogenic” means “caused by humans.” The observation of melting – coupled with the understanding that heat melts ice – implies that it is warming which is certainly happening. That is when it’s not cooling.
Out of curiosity, had you been alive, say, 3000 years ago and you looked up and noticed the sun being blotted out, would you have felt the need to sacrifice fatted calves, white sheep, the best grain, first born males or witches to Baal in order bring the sun back? When the sun came back would you have felt secure in your understanding of how the natural world works?
As for the complaint made for creeping science illiteracy among liberals and their heroic efforts to protect science. One of my favorite hobbies is to ask an indignant liberal, “What is adaptive radiation?” What with it being one of the first pieces of evidence in support of evolution it’s always interesting to convince a liberal complaining about scientific illiteracy that he is lacking the biological science literacy of a tenth grader.
” means “caused by humans.””
Do you want me to use “anthropogenic” every time I type “global warming” so that people can keep track?
I never expressed a “belief” one way or the other. You are free to “believe” that temperature rise is a cyclical phenomenon, or not, man made, or not, or even that it’s “not happening”. If it makes you feel good, go for it. It doesn’t matter to me.
Paragraph 2 was interesting, but I’m not sure why you wrote it. The next time I’m taking a dump I’ll try to imagine what I would think if I was alive 3000 years ago.
I’m pretty sure “creeping science illiteracy” is bipartisan.
The “anthropogenic” part is what makes it a political issue. Anyway, the acronym you asked about — AGW — suffices to distinguish the political kind from global warming resulting from non-human causes.
That’s why people have been using it for, like, years.
That one chapter on racial IQ differences in The Bell Curve distracted just about everybody from the rest of the book. That includes the finding that people nowadays tend to marry close to their own IQ, and that the less intelligent outbreed the more intelligent. Hence the plot of the film Idiocracy.
I’ve wondered if the racial differences could be attributed in part to a certain environmental toxin. Blacks represent a disproportionate share of the poor, and thus a disproportionate share of those who live in houses with lead-based paint. Lead exposure “is associated with aggressive behavior, delinquency, and attention disorders in boys between the ages of 7 and 11” (source). Could there be a connection?
Jiminator —
It’s probably a mistake to teach “evolution” to high school kids. “Evolution” (as well as “the Theory of Evolution”) means “that man-from-monkey idea” to most people, and they reject it in large numbers.
Instead teach Population Genetics to high school kids. A-C-T-G and genes and alleles and mutations and founder effects and frequency variation over millenia and aeons. People understand that easily. They can’t do the math very well, most of them, but they can certainly get the idea that “your dog is ill because all terriors lack a certain gene necessary for digesting snail shells” or whatever.
Teach population genetics. People will learn all the biology they really need for day to day uses. Forget the man-from-monkey stuff for high school kids. Explain it’s too tough for ordinary mortals to learn; teach it in graduate level biology courses; keep the textbooks out of sight from clergymen and politicians and parents; require students learning evolution to have some sort of security clearance; never permit evolution to be mentioned on domestic radio or television programs; start a government program to police offending internet web sites; send people to jail for giving away The Deadly Secrets.
Conservatives will be happy. And every child in America will insist on learning All About Evolution.
“the acronym you asked about — AGW”
Sorry, I own some Women’s Clinic stock that uses something similar, thus my puzzlement.
“for, like, years.”
Southern California, right?
all the arguments about whether or not humans are the cause of global warming miss the point. The question worth a damn is: are there any good models of the phenomenon and do they predict doom? If there aren’t good models, then we need more study before we can advocate any action. If there are good models and they don’t predict doom then there’s no action required.
So far, to me, the answer is no, there are no good models and people who are predicting doom are ignoring that.
Re: AGW. I read this article at Discover Magazine’s website “The Dr. Who Drank Infectious Broth…” about a doctor who proved that ulcers were caused by an infection, and his problems with opposition where the “consensus” was that ulcers were caused by stress and eating “bad” foods, drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco.
Am I the only one who sees a parallel with AGW?
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
Wow, that’s an interesting example you’ve picked there. I happen to know a bit about the “stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria” theory as there’s a lot of Australian scientists involved. The controversy is over the claim that stomach ulcers may be caused by or made worse by bacteria in the stomach. This was considered controversial for a very simple scientific reason: no-one had found bacteria in the stomach. However there was a single data point which suggested they might actually exist.. and there were other explanations for how that single data point might be wrong, contamination being the most important.
So, for years, doctors took samples from patients with stomach ulcers and sent them to researchers who tried various methods to culture them. When they failed the objectors to the theory repeated the mantra that the same thing that makes culturing bacteria in stomach samples hard is what makes it so unlikely that there’s any bacteria that live in the stomach. After lots of good science, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall managed to culture and isolate bacteria from some samples. They contended that most stomach ulcers were caused by the bacteria they had isolated and Marshall dramatically demonstrated this by drinking some of the cultures and getting very sick.
This was met with a lot of skepticism, but after careful study, by various independent groups, it was found the Warren and Marshall’s technique did indeed result in measurable cultures in patients with gastritis and to a lesser extent stomach ulcers. To-date no clear link has been established between H. pylori and the majority of stomach ulcers. So really, although their work was good science and improved our understanding of some stomach pathogens, they were wrong, it doesn’t cause most stomach ulcers. Maybe time will prove them right, but for the attention span of the media it doesn’t matter, the media will keep repeating that Warren and Marshall defied the conventional wisdom of the day and proved that bacteria cause all forms of stomach ulcer because that’s an interesting story.
No. Under a rock, right?
To me, whether it can be proven one race is intellectually inferior to another, while of some academic interest, doesn’t have much practical value. I don’t deal with races; I deal with individuals. Some of the darker-skinned individuals I’ve met in academia are smarter than some of the lighter-skinned individuals I’ve encountered in “DELIVERANCE country.” And a Thomas Sowell–operating on the basis of reason, fact and logic– is always going to be smarter than your average Caucasian “liberal.”
It’s probably a mistake to teach “evolution” to high school kids. “Evolution” (as well as “the Theory of Evolution”) means “that man-from-monkey idea” to most people, and they reject it in large numbers.
I disagree. Evolution is a pretty straightforward, high level theory while genetics is much more complex and detail driven. It’s like skipping basic economics concepts like “supply and demand” and moving into econometrics. You lose the forest for the trees. As for the “man-from-monkey idea”, have people actually compared how they look and act compared to monkeys and apes? Here’s a hint. You’re not that different.
keep the textbooks out of sight from clergymen and politicians and parents; require students learning evolution to have some sort of security clearance; never permit evolution to be mentioned on domestic radio or television programs; start a government program to police offending internet web sites; send people to jail for giving away The Deadly Secrets.
The Obama administration is already doing (or planning to implement) all of these already.
> As for the “man-from-monkey idea”, have people actually compared how they look and act compared to monkeys and apes?
Consider the following three step process:
1) Look at your young child.
2) Mentally note the physical and behavioral resemblances to a chimpanzee.
3) Mention them to your wife.
Personally, for some reason, I have never completed, or even started step 3. Has anyone tried this? If so, what happened?
Yours,
Tom
Tom,
Step 3 will probably result in a phenomenon that Bill Cosby once documented:
“I’ve always heard about people having a conniption but I’ve never seen one. You don’t want to see ’em. My wife’s face… split. My wife’s face split, and the skin and hair split and came off of her face so that there was nothing except the skull. And orange light came out of her hair and there was glitter all around. And fire shot from her eye sockets and began to burn my stomach…”
Karl –
Well I was being a tad facetious … But I’ll hit the main points again. (1) Almost everybody accepts genetics. This doesn’t make them working geneticists, but they accept the basic notions of genes and genetic changes, with rather more understanding than they have for say atoms and isotopes and nuclear particles. Basically they view genetics as medicine, from what I’ve observed — it makes sense to them when the doctor explains things.
(2) But many people choke on genetics at the species level. Hit them with the man-from-monkey idea, and they will climb up a tree and start gibbering at you. Too bad, since evolution is neat and clever and explains a whole lot and has a ton of supporting evidence. They’re missing much of the intellectual fun.
(3) But we don’t actually NEED people who understand evolution any more than we need people who understand element formation in Big-Bang cosmology. We need people who understand that this year’s flu virus isn’t just the same as last year’s flu virus, so they need to get vaccinated again. That’s good enough for most public policy.
mike,
The problem is, if they don’t understand the principle of how we know this years flu virus is different from last years, they won’t buy the rest of what you are saying. The scientific method has to understood, otherwise you have things like people claiming (and being believed) that earthquakes are caused by global warming.
Science teachers have indoctrinated preconceived stuff as it was the truly truest truth, an example is relativity, it has been said Einstein’s famous equation E=mc² for decades, but now is that it is becoming widely known that Poincaré came up with the equation m=E/c², and Einstein only rearranged the formula, as it were, his own formula, he also didn’t arise with the Lorentz transformations, the quantization of light, and didn’t figure out the photoelectric effect either. It is a big shame!!!
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/981120/files/0608289.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/15/einstein_relativity/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute
Alan,
You may be right. Do you think Cosby tried step 3?
Yours,
Tom