[groth]

It's true that Lawrence Summers was largely ousted for an unpolitic statement; however, I would like to extend more credence to the Harvard Faculty, which collectively, overwhelmingly, voted to dismiss him as president.

1. I think it's important also to recognize that the "science" he cited was not fool-proof. In the way that most science is not (for example, check out the 50 year long & still on-going dispute with Phillip Morris about the harmful effects of tobacco). And that moreover, the specific reports he cites can certainly be disputed on the methodology (where are minority women? where are women of different socio economic classes? where are women working in technical fields whose performance do not correspond to standardized test scores? etc)

2. Even if Summers was absolutely right about sex difference between men and women, some of the outrage directed towards him came not from particular concern with his science, but the effects that such statements would have on the construction of a liberal democratic society (which Harvard, despite it's many follies, is mostly invested in). A society which operates on the truth that women just can't do math as well is one which condones expectations that adversely effect female participation in communities of scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and tech-related fields.

*edit for formatting

[force_reboot]

Regarding 2., are you saying that, in general, some true facts are so harmful that the public needs to be prevent from knowing them? And if so, who is in charge of determining what the public can know, and why are those people immune from the harmful effects of these beliefs?

For example you assume the existence of some people who believe that a liberal democratic society requires women in science and tech, even if they are inherently less able in these fields. Why then, can't these people explain to the public why this is the case, so that the public will then accept the need for women in these fields, regardless of the truth regarding IQ?

[groth]

not at all. the 'facts' are obviously out there, but it's not the job of a university president to promote them, especially when their facticity is a) indispute and b) promotes expectations and norms in society that could and do adversely effects a segment of it.

summers is still a faculty member at harvard, he's just no longer president, and no longer speaking for the institution

[force_reboot]

All facts are going to be interpreted differently. So (a) alone is clearly not a good criterion. But if you are saying that (a) and (b) combined imply that a statement should be forbidden, then my critique still applies.

If you forbid Larry Summers from forming one plausible opinion based on the facts, even though you allow others (e.g. the opposite opinion), then your reasoning still must be along the lines that I outlined.

Why can't the public be trusted with the fact that Larry Summers draws one opinion from the data, even though other people have drawn different opinions.

Whenever your reasoning contains something like (b), my critique is going to apply, because you are arguing against a viewpoint based on its consequences, not on its truth (even if you also doubt its truth).

[hajile]

1) Human males have that same kind of more even distribution across many other indicators. I don't know of any decent IQ study that doesn't easily reach similar conclusions.

The idea of relative distribution across races is a much different (and extremely dubious) question and far removed from the question of relative distribution between genders. It doesn't matter if minority women differ relative to other women if the relative difference between minority women and minority men of a given group is the same as the relative difference among the rest of the population.

The question of "other types of intelligence" is not at all related. The jobs in question are STEM. Something like social intelligence is very important, but does not make someone good at STEM and is therefore irrelevant.

2) Firstly, HE DID NOT SAY THAT! Equal chance to try doesn't mean equal chance to succeed. I had equal opportunity to try out for the football team, but there's no way I had equal chance to succeed.

Secondly, if the research is true, then all women should be given the opportunity to see if they can do the job (and those that can should definitely pursue that career if they want), but society shouldn't be blamed if because there are more men than women in STEM if the science says that gender parity in STEM won't happen.

Your "liberal democratic society" idea can go to hell because incorporating the truth into society is more important than anything when it comes to moving humanity toward a better future. If current society can't deal with that truth, then it needs to be modified so human progress can continue.