In his latest New York Times column, John Tierney discusses the results of a new study published in the journal Intelligence. The study looks at SAT scores among elite students, specifically gifted 7th graders, and found that the gender gap in mathematics remains the same as it was 20 years ago, at about a 4:1 ratio in favor of boys.
Unfortunately, the results come far too late to save the job of Larry Summers, who was pilloried and sacked from the Harvard presidency when he suggested that a highly skewed sex ratio in elite science could be caused by exactly the facts which this new paper has uncovered.
Also unfortunately, but this time not just for Summers but for the nation as a whole, the House of Representatives has just passed a bill designed to give the propagandists and diversity workers money and an audience whom to harangue in the form of the ever-present, modern-day "workshop". In Tierney's words:
This proposed law, if passed by the Senate, would require the White House science adviser to oversee regular “workshops to enhance gender equity.” At the workshops, to be attended by researchers who receive federal money and by the heads of science and engineering departments at universities, participants would be given before-and-after “attitudinal surveys” and would take part in “interactive discussions or other activities that increase the awareness of the existence of gender bias.”
I’m all in favor of women fulfilling their potential in science, but I feel compelled, at the risk of being shipped off to one of these workshops, to ask a couple of questions:
1) Would it be safe during the “interactive discussions” for someone to mention the new evidence supporting Dr. Summers’s controversial hypothesis about differences in the sexes’ aptitude for math and science?
2) How could these workshops reconcile the “existence of gender bias” with careful studies that show that female scientists fare as well as, if not better than, their male counterparts in receiving academic promotions and research grants?
Bad science policy is everywhere courtesy of the federals, this being merely the latest manifestation. Thanks to lobbying, for instance, U.S. spending on AIDS research is nearly half that of spending on cancer and heart disease together, despite the fact that the latter two are the leading causes of death in the U.S., comprising about half of all deaths, whereas AIDS doesn't even make the top ten. Now the government will presumably be forcing diversity mandates on science funding, and if top researchers and universities don't have enough women in place, workshops are probably the least that they can expect.
Besides sex variation in IQ and IQ subsets like math and verbal ability, women are much less inclined to put in the grueling level of work required for a Ph.D. in the natural sciences, and in addition the long years of low pay and long hours necessary for a position in elite science. If both IQ and the differing incentives and motivations of men and women are taken into account, they could very likely completely explain the sex ratio in the upper echelons of science.
All of this shows how a knowledge of human biodiversity could save society from many mistakes and much waste of money. Those who yell "discrimination" the loudest, however, have the ear of the establishment, and so ignorant is nearly everyone about sexual and racial differences that even to argue that these differences might be a factor in the results seen is a position that invites opprobrium and the loss of one's job. Ignorance of human biodiversity isn't the only reason for that; as we've seen above, the diversity class with its workshops and sinecures, as well as victim groups - women, in this case - resist even hearing about sex IQ differences, much less trying to understand them or even seeing if they might be reasonable.