Political & Elections

Which is Why  DS has me blocked me on FB, and I'am not friended. Did you know that FB allows you to be incognito to certain people. Which is also why the Feds can track you anywhere without you knowing. 

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 24th of September 2013 11:30:52 AM

[I] Happen to agree with Summers. Just go visit UrbanBaby dot com and see what women are talking about. Lot of smart and accomplished women but sometimes the focus is family security, finding a man/husband, getting TTC and then worrying about get child(ren) into the proper schools and their playdates. After all that, they then wonder if they made the right choice and want to hump someone else.  

Guys, its all about getting lucky and then staying lucky. 

 

This is a re-post of something I placed in the WSJ thread. It applies here too.

Larry Summers was, and apparently still is, a victim of liberalism's denial of science in favor of its politically correct sacred cows. Same thing happened to Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1965.

In the end, after decades of public policies based on liberalism's science-denying "values," billions of taxpayer $$$ spent on those policies, and unquantifiable damage to the social fabric - most dramatically within the precise "victim group" that liberalism purports to "help" - it turns out that Summers and Moynihan were right all along, and the liberal "values" were wrong.

From The New York Times:

“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.” It’s easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace “intelligent design” while rejecting Darwinism. But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against criticizing victims of racism.

“Moynihan was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist,” Dr. Haidt said. “Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the black family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it was most urgently needed. Only in the last few years have liberal sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along.”

Similarly, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was ostracized in 2005 for wondering publicly whether the preponderance of male professors in some top math and science departments might be due partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there are more men at the very high and very low ends). “This was not a permissible hypothesis,” Dr. Haidt said. “It blamed the victims rather than the powerful. The outrage ultimately led to his resignation. We psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage. We should have defended his right to think freely.”

Instead, the taboo against discussing sex differences was reinforced, so universities and the National Science Foundation went on spending tens of millions of dollars on research and programs based on the assumption that female scientists faced discrimination and various forms of unconscious bias. But that assumption has been repeatedly contradicted, most recently in a study published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by two Cornell psychologists, Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. After reviewing two decades of research, they report that a woman in academic science typically fares as well as, if not better than, a comparable man when it comes to being interviewed, hired, promoted, financed and published.


Here's the relevant section regarding Summers from the original presentation (links below) mentioned in the New York Times article, giving more detail about exactly what he did "wrong," and what happened to him as a result:

I'll just refer you to Larry Summers' famous musings about why men are overrepresented in math and science departments at the nation's top universities.

As on one of his 3 hypotheses, he noted that there is a sex difference in the standard deviation of IQ scores between men and women. He didn't say that men are smarter. He didn’t say that men have higher IQs. He just noted the well known fact that the variance of male scores is larger, which means that there are more men at the very bottom, and at the very top. Might that contribute to the underrepresentation of women at the very top levels of science? If you're standing outside the force field it's a good hypothesis, certainly worth exploring. But if you're inside the force field, it is not a permissible hypothesis. It is sacrilege. It blames the victims, rather than the powerful. The ensuing outrage led ultimately to his resignation as president of Harvard.

Here's the original section about Moynihan:

Social science research often bears on policy issues, and so many of those issues got caught up in the moral flux lines. Just look what happened when Pat Moynihan, a liberal sociologist and public policy expert, wrote a report, for president Johnson's war on poverty, titled "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action." Moynihan desperately wanted government action to help African Americans. But his report included a chapter called “the tangle of pathology” which was his term for the interconnected problems of unmarried motherhood and welfare dependency. Moynihan used the term "culture of poverty." Even though he was very clear that the ultimate cause of this pathology was racism, he still committed the cardinal sin: He criticized African American culture, which means that in a way, he blamed the victims.

The moral electro magnet turned on, tradeoffs were prohibited. Victims had to be blameless. Moynihan went down and was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as a racist. Conversely, the policies went up. They became articles of faith; if your research cast doubt on their efficacy or ethics, you were in violation of the moral force field, and you were a traitor to the team.

Transcript, PowerPoint slides, and audio of original presentation referred to in above quote is available here:
http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-bright-future-of-post-partisan-social-psychology

All of the above PLUS an exhaustive recap, with links to relevant articles and supporting materials, of the controversy which swirled around these observations and others for months, is available here:
http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/postpartisan.html