I take much pride in my forthright objectivity. I try to look at everything without the bias of personal motivation or allegiance. So sometimes, I make points uncommonly voiced by my peers. Today, I will defend a select portion of NAMs.
One of the unfortunate consequences of HBD, for me personally, has been my suspicion of NAM achievement. I call this unfortunate because while my suspicions are usually correct, they're not always a fair assessment of an individual's merit. Thus, I occasionally write off a qualified NAM or female peer due to my knowledge of HBD averages and the ubiquity of affirmative action.
But does this knee-jerk reaction EVER apply at the highest levels of scientific and engineering achievement? I explicitly exclude humanities success, such as Obama being a law professor, because the standards are so wonderfully subjective (see Sotomayor's writing sample here). So how should we approach the female professors in Ivy League physics or biology departments? Should we assume they only achieved such distinction through biased hiring, just as we readily assume black students are subpar?
From experience reading research papers in the relevant fields, it's absurd to assert these NAM or female individuals are unqualified. Perhaps they haven't conducted award winning research, but the ones that got hired can't fake it like their humanities peers. Either they can do the science or they can't. These professional scientists and researchers are the real-deal and suspicion of them is almost always unwarranted.
18 comments:
Women at the highest levels of STEM are undoubtedly competent, but have nevertheless often achieved a station beyond their actual accomplishments.
Most STEM departments are under strong pressure to hire women, and the pool is rather small in many (math-intensive) fields. At the wealthier (e.g., Ivy League) schools special funds are often made available to a department if they can produce a qualified female candidate -- the department gets the position "for free" in a sense.
Whether you think this is a good thing depends on your attitude toward the eventual "equilibrium" population of women in science. If you think women are underrepresented in science now due to lack of role models, hostile male environment, etc., then these programs will help correct the situation and allow society to access a broader pool of talent. If, on the other hand, you are dubious about the existence of gender discrimination, and think the underrepresentation of women is due to some intrinsic factors, then these programs are a waste of resources. Larry Summers got into big trouble for just mentioning the second viewpoint, so you can imagine this isn't a question which has been carefully examined within the Academy.
You can change the word "women" to NAM in the above discussion and everything still applies.
While I think objectivity can be elusive I rarely see NAMs step back and say maybe they are over sensitive and sometimes whites are rude not because some race issue but just because they are having a bad day etc. It seems whites are more likely to criticize or at least attempt to critically analyze their own views to see if they are accurate. When do you ever see NAMs do this? Very occasionally.
As for women, many of the women who could do these jobs do not want to. I know plenty of really smart women who quit to be moms. Basically many women smart enough to do these jobs are smart enough to get themselves into the job they really want: mother. This current culture can't seem to get it, that given the opportunity, a fair number of highly able women value a family more than achievement. Feminists openly criticize these women. However, these women aren't losers, they are just women. It is part of their nature to want to have a family more than to achieve something in science, business etc.
That is an additional reason the pool of women will always be smaller than the pool of men. Virtually all of the top men are in the market and maybe only half of the top women are. So that would be at the very most 1 woman for every 5 or 6 men, and only if society really doubles down on the pressure on women to pursue these jobs.
Hey just thought of this.
Media likes to hype racism by whites or "institutions" as keeping NAMs out.
How about the pressure bright NAMs are under from NAM peers not to pursue "white" objectives like high academic achievement? Perhaps low expectations and excuses start at home. Even people of low ability can do better even if they can't be great. With regard to those with the most potential, they won't work up to their potential without parental encouragement and even social approval.
Good points silly girl. I also suspect that another issue is at play. My wife has two female friends who are extremely bright and went into engineering. While they lack the pure love for the subject that so many male engineers have, nevertheless they made it through based on their sheer intellectual horsepower. In a way this is much more impressive than a man who excels at a topic he loves.
But after a while both of these women lost interest in the field and quit their engineering jobs in search of some other profession.
This isn't to say that there aren't also women who love Engineering and also have truly stunning intelligence. But we are measuring the very tail end of the bell curve here where small differences in group averages are greatly magnified.
I can attest from personal experience that in biomedical research women researchers should be taken very seriously indeed.
It is a different story, somewhat, in the math intensive fields of physics, mathematics, and cutting edge engineering, computer science, and physical chemistry.
The more the requirement for advanced mathematical and spatial skills, the fewer women can be found at elite levels.
As far as NAM researchers, statistically there will be low numbers of NAMs capable of performing at top levels. But that is a larger number than zero.
I can't wait until we can look at actual gene clusters that impact on intelligence and executive function, instead of being stuck at the low-resolution level of "race" and "gender."
"How about the pressure bright NAMs are under from NAM peers not to pursue "white" objectives like high academic achievement?"
I'd say this problem is way overhyped (especially in relation to almost identical pressure amongst whites). I wrote about it here:
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/06/emotional-basis-of-acting-white.html
Speaking of the actual genetic bases, there was a liger post on scienceblogs that made the point that it made a difference as to which parent was tiger or the lion. There was a huge disparity between the size of the offspring based on whether the male parent was a tiger or lion. Any evidence that certain mental traits in humans could similarly follow such a pattern? Is the child more likely to be smart, or conscientious etc. if he or she inherits the traits from mom or dad?
liger post
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/09/why_ligers_are_huge.php
My experience in the biomedical field is that the women who make it to the top are just as good as the men. My experience with NAM's, however, is very limited.
- Black Death
In general NAMs and women have to undergo weaker selection, and their distribution is left-shifted. Hence their quality *is* going to be lower.
Women in bio are definitely fairly competitive, but even still you can see a gap where the "lab slaves" are more likely to be women.
See Griffe's post on this:
http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/dct.htm
In physics, it's bullshit: it's all quotas. Women hires are not on par, from personal intimate ;) knowledge. My field is small, I know EVERYBODY.
Your avid reader,
PhD in Theoretical Physics, MIT
Even if fems are capable, that doesn't make AA any less treasonously, criminally unconstitutional (not that I would lower myself down to that shit rag).
It simply is not "justice" to have these over-seeing bate-and-switch elites do this to society when the dumb ass buffoons of the military throughout our history did NOT fight for any of this! (I'm looking at you 'band of dingbats'.)
Nor did the dumb ass voters vote for any of this.
It is all fiat, imposed from power-posts achieved through relying on protectionist demagoguery (coming from all quarters not just politicos) which got under the skin of the cumbaya jebus continent** and also effortlessly "triangulated**" around the easily demonize-able capitalist strip-mine vision.
[**cumbaya jebus continent = ...jebus cult is marxism v1.0 --created by the same race of wandering trouble makers then and now -- and its followers are sappy blushy Nords bred by it into simple/dunce cumbaya-ites. Is it any wonder modern marxism was so easily able to find ear with it?]
["**triangulated" = big-tent coalition stuff --chimps picking bugs off each other.]
---
AA is not about fem aptitude. Spinning it that way doesn't address the points I made (_very clearly_) just a few threads back:
Achievement is not a Right. It is competition side effect _over_ girls (sneaky as ever they were).
If girls _are_ being picked (for positions they DON'T need) boys are _not_ being (for positions they DO).
And that is a double bad because of female instincts (we live in ignorance/denial of); eg 'shit test' --which the males fail now-- and hypergamy.
Once again the issue is framed wrong.
"They don't need to worry about the answers if they get you to ask the wrong questions."
-------
I find females competent. But note the new roles are easy to handle (alas 'tis civilization's goal). Bob Cratchet use to do every thing the modern world uses a room full of gossiping chicken heads to do now -- except he didn't have any coal!
And further the dysgenic population explosion of dopey males makes many females seem more desirable in positions. (For example, I like female doctors more than jew male ones --who are 'poisoning the medicine', I believe [ie they aint too hip to to make goy warriors healthy /smart again].)
Parliamentary democracy has created a world of labrador males vs female border collies --with the male border collies being marginalized to the homo sovieticus** gulags.
["**homo sovietucs" = like that Full Metal Jacket scene at the lime trench.]
Female border collies are still border collies and as such are smarter than male labradors. But we are replacing male border collies (smarter still) to create this unasked for utopia.
Note though I'm looking forward to the military and police being over 50% female soon. ;-)
(My screed against parliamentary democracy is wrong. My Jacobin spite for parli-demo blinds me. It actually is civilization itself that is breeding for female border collies and male Labradors at the expense of the male border collie. Civi itself, unfortunately.)
"could should" fallacy/conundrum...
I think military guys are absolute dunces. It is much easier to bring some liberals over to your view --if you have the gift (I do [haughty snort]) -- than a conformist dog on a leash; the dog waits for popularity to make the decision for him then he conforms to that.
But...
Once I was watchting the boob tube. A military general was being asked by a congressional panel whether or not he could train females to be effective soldiers.
He hee'd and haw'd and they said "listen can you train a female --take your daughter for example-- to be a [la femme nikita] or not?"
He pauses then goes "Yes. But why would I want to. Why would society want me to unleash that on it?"
They said "thankyou, you're dismissed."
It is "could should" fallacy/conundrum.
We can replace males with females now (for the reasons I gave much above) but why should we?
Implications of the females are 'competent enough' approach:
A little pantomime to make it fun...
One day humans are brains in bubbles. I'm sure the females make fine brains in bubbles. But that is not the point. The point is if the male is still a male, he is going to have his brain-tongue hanging out for the female's medulla oblongata. Now 'being as all other things are equal' in bubbles, the female brain will, nature graphically tells us, lead him a popcorn trial back to her black-widow's spider web.
In a bubble.
....
So what is actually being advocated by the west?...
Should we vote on replacing males with females now since the females are so competent and all? ...It's not like they would use this new leverage to give men and boys new obstacles. [sarc]
Can the voting horde --and their media shyster handlers-- understand simple female-value and male-redundancy principle snowballing along to praying mantis social-dynamic parallels?
Can the masses contemplate that the only _real_ solution then is so called "transhumanism"? (Specifically getting rid of gender or etc to protect the next generation.) [...And for each new Promethean solution a new Pandorian box opened... snowballing along, Luciferianly over the roses of an imagined Eden.]
Is this what was fought for in any war or revolution ever?
[I guess I've snowballed into Luddite-ism now... But what are ya gonna do...]
From experience reading research papers in the relevant fields, it's absurd to assert these NAM or female individuals are unqualified. Perhaps they haven't conducted award winning research, but the ones that got hired can't fake it like their humanities peers. Either they can do the science or they can't. These professional scientists and researchers are the real-deal and suspicion of them is almost always unwarranted.
Don't by it. The book The Affirmative Action Hoax shows that even medical programs practice AA in admissions and grading.
Of course you can't totally fake being smart like you can in the humanities, but science and engineering NAMs/women are generally incompetent compared to white males.
OK, let me streamline it a little.
I'm talking of professional researchers and professors. Are the average NAM/female physics profs a little worse than their white male counterparts? I would imagine so. But you can't fake the theoretical science that these people do. It's not like some crappy industry engineer who just BS's his way through every day (I know an industry engineer who constantly complains about this).
none of this applies to Cornel West/Skip gates type race racketeers or 'feminist" studies "intellectuals".
Are the average NAM/female physics profs a little worse than their white male counterparts? I would imagine so.
Yes.
But you can't fake the theoretical science that these people do.
Agreed -- they're competent. But advanced beyond their abilities.
"Agreed -- they're competent. But advanced beyond their abilities."
But just think about what merely "competent" implies at these levels? It's not being competent at Algebra or speaking French. At this level, the "quality line" is almost binary, which is much different than in industry where the quality of engineers varies greatly.
Either you can do it (only about 0.01% population can) or you can't. So to say they're merely "competent" is really an insult to how proficient they are.
Also, just because there's a much smaller pool of able people doesn't mean there aren't extraordinary indivudlas from a group. Let's say Tiger Woods is a member of a crappy local golf club. Is it likely that a ton of professional golfers will come from that club? Of course not, but that doesn't preclude Tiger Woods coming from that local club.
It's not a binary distinction. There is a huge difference between a 1 in 1000 (+3 SD) talent and a 1 in 30,000 (+4 SD) talent (and beyond). To an average person they may be indistinguishable, but when you get to the highest levels of math-intensive science it is obvious who the top people really are. Think Terence Tao or von Neumann (these guys are +5 SD at least) versus a typical math professor (+4 SD) who is a good researcher but not a superstar.
** There is no question an average person or student can pose which would differentiate between these people, but ask the typical math professor and he/she will be in awe of Tao or von Neumann. **
A gender difference in mean ability or variance would mean a more and more lopsided M/F ratio of such people as you go out on the tail. 3-1 at the merely competent level might become 100-1 at the Fields medal level.
To use a sports analogy, if you play pickup basketball you might be just as impressed by the starting guard at a Div I school as by an NBA starter, but at the pro level the first guy may be well below the NBA cut.
Thanks to AA lots of women who are competent but not really superstars have superstar positions at top universities.
Anonymous said...
>"binary distinction..."
------
Good post.
And with these superstar positions they- -not only have caused the benching of better men somewhere-- but they act as 'symbols' for the dopey and brainwashed to rally around.
Through that, the feminist cult (male and female) has enough juice to radically oppress our society; And also to call that oppression "freedom" with a straight face.
Post a Comment