I haven't said anything about the latest flap with Larry Summers, but Steven Pinker says it all:

First, let’s be clear what the hypothesis is—every one of Summers’ critics has misunderstood it. The hypothesis is, first, that the statistical distributions of men’s and women’s quantitative and spatial abilities are not identical—that the average for men may be a bit higher than the average for women, and that the variance for men might be a bit higher than the variance for women (both implying that there would be a slightly higher proportion of men at the high end of the scale). It does not mean that all men are better at quantitative abilities than all women! That’s why it would be immoral and illogical to discriminate against individual women even if it were shown that some of the statistidcal [sic] differences were innate...

...CRIMSON: Were President Summers’ remarks within the pale of legitimate academic discourse?

PINKER: Good grief, shouldn’t everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That’s the difference between a university and a madrassa...

...the truth cannot be offensive. Perhaps the hypothesis is wrong, but how would we ever find out whether it is wrong if it is “offensive” even to consider it? People who storm out of a meeting at the mention of a hypothesis, or declare it taboo or offensive without providing arguments or evidence, don’t get the concept of a university or free inquiry.

I should note that this is a similar argument to that aroused by The Bell Curve. To say that a group of people has an average characteristic tells us absolutely nothing about how we should treat individual members of that group, and to think that it does is to fundamentally fail basic tests of ability to reason.

I found most of the Crimson's questions clueless and inane, and it's clear that Professor Pinker did as well. And Professor Hopkins, who got the vapors at hearing things that (irrationally) upset her, should be embarrassed to call herself a scientist.

Jonah Goldberg isn't impressed, either.

[Update in the evening]

Jane Galt has further thoughts.

[Thursday morning update]

Virginia Postrel weighs in:

The flap over Larry Summers' bravely analytical comments on why women might be scarce at the top of math and science scholarship demonstrates that political correctness is alive and well and, even more depressing, that a remarkable number of scientifically talented women are incapable of understanding plain English or the difference between general statistical patterns and individual data points. It's been a long time since female scientists did so much to advance the stereotype of women as hysterically incapable of rational analysis.

The other thing that the jackbooted PC brownshirts of ultra-left academia ignore is that the hypothesized difference in ability might NOT be innate, but rather the product of an education system that may not be teaching math & science to the female population the way they need to be taught. I see three chances that the education establishment will pick up on that idea: fat, slim, and none.

- Eric.

A disproportionate number of mathematicians have Asperger's Syndrome -- a condition that occurs much more often in males than in females.

I'm often accused by my girlfriend of being so fiendishly unemotional when coldly telling the truth about a subject. In my opinion whats to get so upset about when dealing with the truth. Especially in a an event or topic that one has no control over. I would say that women are probably a little higher up on the bell curve of becoming emotionally clouded when formulating logical thought. Remember that old argument back during the cold war about how a woman could never be President. Reason being that as soon as she got the menstration she would get like so upset that the Soviets weren't taking her feelings seriously enough. Then, start pounding the big red button to signal the 'its time to nuke those bastards' alarm.

Summers' critics aren't interested in science, they are purely political creatures. Much the same as the midieval church, any scientific evidence that goes against orthodoxy and dogma is to be silenced and anyone promoting such evidence is to be crushed.

Summers is furiously backpedaling at this point. What a shame.

I agree that it's a shame that Summers is backpedaling. Because he's right.

But I'd like to point out that he also needed to make his point much clearer. Most of the 'general public' do NOT understand statistical distributions. Especially on an emotional level. That includes both the toss-up lady and the previous commenter, Josh (even though his qualifier seems to indicate he understands it on an intellectual level).

I happen to be on the 'wrong' side of most bell-curves on the female/male scale. There's some "we can tell which sex you are" quiz out there that gets linked once in a while, and I keep clicking it just to see if it has learned (it has a 'you are wrong' button, and claims to pay attention). I've come out as male every time I've taken the quiz.

Btw, I minored in math in college.