http://platosbeard.org/archives/119
> Some of what Larry Summers said about scientific and mathematical
> aptitudes was sensible enough. And some of it was the kind of bosh
> you can expect from an economist, as Mr. Summers is.
>
> Reflections on possible standard deviations in units of scientific
> intelligence between the sexes should they exist, and should somebody
> be able to define them—is speculation, but even the president of
> Harvard should be allowed to speculate, whether or not he has much of
> a talent for it. In philosophy, Mr. Summers falls a couple of
> standard deviations below the mean, to use his kind of lingo.
>
> Nevertheless, Mr. Summers provided food for thought for the rest of
> us. Start with this bit of his, in which he finds some evidence for
> genetic differences between peoples. It is, after all, not the case
> that the role of women in science is the only example of a group that
> is significantly underrepresented in an important activity, and whose
> underrepresentation contributes to a shortage of role models for
> others who are considering being in that group, he famously said.
> 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.
>
> Only an economist could victimize himself with such thinking, because
> economists are peculiarly liable to confound 'the data' with the
> facts.
So, what do you lot have to say in your defense? ;-)
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
