A Poor Choice Of Words, II: Academia vs. Reality

The Becker-Posner blog presents an interesting discussion of freedom of speech on university campuses. No, we're not talking about Ward Churchill again, at least not directly. They have a post today about the continuing Larry Summers controversy. Larry Summers, for those of you who just joined us, is the Harvard professor who noticed that there aren't very many women in scientific or mathematical professions, and so had the audacity to suggest that women aren't as interested in science and mathematics as men are. He has been roundly lambasted for making these remarks, some say with complete justification. Here's my take, though; the man is a scientist. What do scientists do? They observe the tendencies of the natural world, they formulate hypotheses based on those observations, and they report their findings and hypotheses to others. Knowing many scientists and scientific thinkers, I can hear the logic process here:

1. "There aren't many women in science."
2. "There must not be many women excelling in science, or else I'd have heard of more of them or see more of them at my own level (that of a Harvard science professor)."
3. "Women must not be as good at science as men."

It sounds to me like Summers was doing what any good scientist does. I don't think his comments were disparaging to women or intentionally discriminatory in nature; he was simply reporting the facts as he saw them from his own observations.

Posner makes a good point regarding the implications of the resulting criticism of Summers:

One comment [that he had received regarding a previous post] makes the interesting point that Summers's post-apology position implies indefinitely deferring any inquiry into possible innate differences in science abilities. The reason is the insistence that before those differences should be studied, every other possible cause--social, economic, psychological, political--for the differences in male and female career choices be studied and eliminated.

This leads us down a dangerous path: the idea that there really ARE no inherent differences between one human being and another. Mind over matter. We reinforce this idea with our children from birth: "You can do whatever you want to do or be whatever you want to be, if you just put your mind to it." The Quintessential American Quotation is, of course, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Equality is the most pervasive concept in our society. In the area of rights and responsibilities, it is true that every human being is the same as every other. In functional abilities, however, it is obviously just the opposite.

I can sing, but can I sing as well as Harry Connick, Jr. or Sarah Brightman or Ella Fitzgerald? No way. I can play golf, but can I play as well as Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson or Annika Sorenstam? Huh-uh. I know some physics, but am I as brilliant in physics as Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking? I wish. I've played some tennis, but is there a chance I could beat John Mcenroe or Serena Williams or Lindsay Davenport? Not even with a gun to my head. Sure, those people cultivated their talents to reach the rarefied air in which they reside, but they had to have an aptitude for their respective areas, else they would never have even considered the field they're in. We talk all the time about child prodigies and phenoms, but the reverse side of that coin proves my point. You can't have a child prodigy, you can't have a phenom, unless that child is born with an innate talent, an aptitude for a particular skill or task, that sets them apart as better than others attempting the same skill or task. If this were not true, why bother with the SAT or ACT before we let students into college? Why bother with the MCAT before med school? Why bother with the LSAT before law school? Why bother with the GRE before grad school admission? The idea of those tests is to ascertain those who are less capable (and thus less deserving) from those who are more capable (and more deserving)! As Posner points out, academics try to find any other possible excuse to explain away why one person is better at something than another: economic circumstances, social situations, psychological makeup (and even this can be touchy ground). Some things really can be explained away by these kinds of arguments.

For example, I do information security (as previously discussed). Indeed, I seem to have a natural aptitude for working with computers (or just about anything technical, for that matter). The question is, why? Well, my dad has worked in computers and electronics since before I was born. I've had computers around in my home practically my entire life. I had my first computer, a Commodore VIC-20, when I was 8 years old. (Ugh, don't get me started...I'll reminisce another time). So you could argue that my "aptitude" really just comes from being around computers my entire life. Ditto music. I seem to have a pretty natural musical ability. But my dad has always been very heavily involved with music. Some of my earliest memories entail hearing music that my parents were playing. My dad has sang and played guitar for as long as I can remember. But there's another important part to notice. In each case, I'm describing something I seem to have picked up from my father. In the issue of musical ability, it goes back to my grandfather, who also sang and led music at church. Could it be a purely environmental issue, or does my father's family have an innate musical talent that I inherited? Does my dad have an innate technical ability that I inherited?

In the end, I go to what I know best, and one of those things is sports. Let me first state that the following statements are in no way discriminatory. Nor are they racially motivated, except in the interests of science and this discussion. I've grown up with sports my entire life. I've seen a lot of things in sports, known a lot of people in sports. The one discussion no one in sports has openly is, how is it that sports seem to be dominated more and more by people of African origin or ancestry? Look at distance running. It's been years since Roger Bannister ran his mile, but look at the top runners today; they're all from central Africa. It isn't that runners from other parts of the world run less; most non-African runners train just as hard and under conditions every bit as difficult as African runners. That's the entire point of the sport. Yet the African runners continue to come out on top. Let's move to football. There's a bit more equal distribution in football, but the sport is still more black today than white. Many of the white players worked as hard to get where they are as the black players did; in fact, if you believe the continuing claims of the African-American leadership, the black players are MORE disadvantaged than the whites, so that's essentially one less point for them. What could make up that discrepancy, such that they excel at heavily physical sports such as distance running, football, and basketball, in apparently greater numbers than whites? Could it possibly be a genetic propensity for those kinds of activity, such that they are born with a natural aptitude for those sports?

I'm not saying that any race is in any way inferior or superior to any other race. I'm merely saying that each appears to have different natural aptitudes. These aptitudes could come just as easily from socio-economic circumstances, but in something as purely physical (and thus biological) as sports, this is the simplest to consider from the standpoint of genetics. Really, is it so difficult to believe? The Theory of Evolution tells us that lifeforms evolve in certain ways that are to their highest advantage for the environment in which they live. Why marvel at the incredible abilities amongst different species of fish, or even different breeds of horse, but completely discount the basic genetic differences in different kinds of human?

Of course, a final thought, and one that makes this argument so difficult...you can see talent, but only those who cultivate their talent, no matter their race or gender, can achieve. This in itself makes this entire discussion one we can never resolve.

Thanks again for reading along.