…and this is a 
Pandagon disturbs me
Category: Feminism • Politics
Posted on: September 19, 2007 1:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Sometimes, men really suck. Amanda horrifies me with this wife-beating video: a horrible little man browbeats, strikes, and briefly chokes his wife while having their children videotape the whole thing. I guess he felt that she deserved it.
I couldn't help but noticed that the wretched Y-chromosome-bearing thug was also prominently wearing a bright, sparkly cross around his neck the whole time.
As if one shaming wasn't enough, Amanda also had to flaunt another example of male stupidity, a ghastly speech arguing that gender differences justify inequities — it goes on at length about the tiresome argument that the statistical distributions skew with men having more outliers at both ends than women. Here's a good argument against that:
His first attempt to argue that men are smarter than women is the strange "men are at more extremes of the IQ spectrum than women". As Violet notes, this is a pretty weak argument, since the extremes of the range are statistically insignificant and not really the drivers of society. And since women are in fact as smart as men, the initial "men are on top because they're just smarter LARRYSUMMERSWASAVICTIM" argument falls apart pretty quickly.
If there's one lesson we should have learned from the Bush years, it is that the best and brightest do not necessarily rise to the top, so it's awfully silly to argue that there is a meritocracy in operation that is merely rewarding the slender tail at the far right of the distribution.
There's also an unwarranted assumption there. Why assume that the dregs to the left of the distribution must be compensated for by paragons to the right? We already know that women experience a cultural wall that limits their ability to excel at the most remunerative endeavors — it seems to me that it's just as reasonable to estimate that female performance at the high end of the scale might be equivalent to male's; I can see where hemizygosity might lead to a greater frequency of aberrant pathologies, but not where it would lead to particular advantages in this situation.
But most of all what bugs me about the stupid speech is that it begins by deploring the idea of a "battle of the sexes", and then justifies many of its excuses with evolution, as if men and women are separately evolving species. It's absurd. Over half my genes come from my mother, and a slightly fewer come from my father. We evolve together, with an obligate mingling of alleles from both sexes at every generation. We both have equal potential, because it is the same potential — the only question is whether we're going to let bogus apologetics for inequities continue to limit the possibilities for half of us.
Politics
Comments
I've often wondered if the reason that boys are now lagging girls in education is because there is more equality between the sexes in education. I have to laugh when I hear conservatives blame the system because boys are underperforming: "boys are more active and can't sit for long periods"; "most teachers are women who have it in for boys"; etc. The same conditions existed when boys outperformed girls, but now it's a "crisis." Ah, well . . .
Posted by: BC | September 19, 2007 1:18 AM
If abuse is a learned behavior, which I believe it to be, I want to know what sort of follow-up treatment is being given to the children who were daily witnesses to this. How are they being treated to understand that their father's behavior was not normal?
Domestic abuse is a terrifying social crime, an artifact that continues because we still haven't figured out how to break the cycle from generation to generation.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | September 19, 2007 2:01 AM
Now I wouldn't advocate violent retribution, but I will say that I did recently purchase two new Filipino swords and the phone book I've been test-cutting them on suddenly feels strangely inadequate.
Posted by: Evil Monkey | September 19, 2007 2:12 AM
They showed that video in my police academy. I don't think I've seen 16 more angry people in a room after watching a video than at that time. There was actually applause when they said he got 36 years.
Posted by: DiscordianStooge | September 19, 2007 2:22 AM
Before anyone asks, I'm guessing this refers to the combined nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. (Right?)
Still, this other part seems weird:
There is such a thing as sexual dimorphism, and there is such a thing as sexual dimorphism fueled by sexual selection. My hypothetical sister and I don't both have the same potential to develop an attractive goatee or seductively deep Barry White voice. Is there any particular reason why That Thing IQ Measures can or can't be one of those sexually selected dimorphisms? Or just a plain old dimorphism?
Maybe biology is a flimsy excuse for social inequity, but maybe it's the other way around. I don't see conclusive arguments here for either.
Posted by: Epistaxis | September 19, 2007 3:13 AM
I don't think I want to watch the video, but based on what I'm hearing, I'm inclined to agree.
I find it especially disturbing that this person (there are women who do this sort of thing, although there aren't nearly as many of them, and they're equally deplorable, but that's not the point here) even had his kids watch this, let alone videotaping it. I have nothing but contempt for people who feel that behaving violently towards should-be-loved ones is acceptable, and this is speaking as a person who's struggled with anger management issues in the past and, to a lesser degree, still does. I've never felt it was right or defensible when I've lost my temper and become violent, and on the occasions where I've found myself grabbing my wife's shoulders or pushing her, I've explained to her later, over her protests, that it was NOT her fault, that what I did was NOT ok or justified, and that it reflected a problem with ME, not her. I've sought counseling before, but it hasn't helped much; I haven't, so far, had much luck in getting mental health professionals to talk to ME rather than to half-listen until they find the Central Casting cardboard archetype my situation and personality are least unlike and then robotically responding to that. I have never been, and scrupulously avoid, becoming drunk, in large part for this reason. Anyone who feels inclined to tell me that this is wrong is preaching to the choir, but I'm very interested in any serious, constructive suggestions anyone might have. :/
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 19, 2007 3:23 AM
Whenever it's been argued that women can't do X, where X is something men can do, it's turned out that they can.* By now, each fresh argument that "this new X is different" ought to be even less convincing, but too many of us want to believe.
* Because it's obvious that in category Y, which includes child-bearing and breast-feeding, men can do fuck all.
Posted by: bad Jim | September 19, 2007 3:45 AM
There is such a thing as sexual dimorphism, and there is such a thing as sexual dimorphism fueled by sexual selection.
Indeed I also felt the comment only relevant to the issue of the abuse of evolutionary theory in the realm of meta-analysis of human social issues (long history of that), but then missed the perhaps lesser point that there are indeed predicted and observable differences in selective pressures between the sexes.
I sometimes wonder if sciencebloggers forget there's this little thing called:
Parental investment theory.
was formalized by Trivers...
remember now?
sure, we evolve together, but that doesn't mean each sex doesn't have a different set of selective pressures.
However, it's all a side issue of the key one here anyway, which is simply:
the guy in the video is fubar for beating his wife, his wife and kids will need decades to recover from the mental and physical abuse, and aberrations like that aren't necessarily best explained by generalized evolutionary theory of any kind, but fit better into the realm of practical pyschology.
I rather think it might be a good idea to post links to websites that talk about the development of abusive behavior, and examine treatment options, so that those who actually might be experiencing something similar might get a start on what can be done.
like this for example:
http://www.abusedadultresourcecenter.com/index.htm
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects.htm
the issue of domestic violence is perhaps a far more important issue to discuss than the merits of the application of sociobiology.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 19, 2007 3:47 AM
I'm also reminded of Mill's commentary, still appallingly relevant to the present understanding of gender differences:
Icthyic: thanks for the links, I'll take a look.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 19, 2007 3:53 AM
Why does this remind me of the "Recital"?
Oh, perhaps things like these:
4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.
4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
Posted by: G. Tingey | September 19, 2007 4:05 AM
On the suggestion side for that, I doubt there's anything you can do to get the psychobabble people to do their jobs properly since I don't believe they are competent to do them anyway. I suppose you could go through an exhaustive search for the one exception to the rule but that would almost certainly cost a lot of money.
On the suggestion side for the actual problem: do you at least know what your triggers are? Do you go back and analyse and record what you can as soon as you've caught yourself in the act? Those would be the bits on which you then need to apply higher level feedback to your behaviours in the hope of eventually modifying the lower level instincts.
Posted by: SEF | September 19, 2007 4:55 AM
I tried watching this video but must confess I chickened out after the first 15 seconds - the expression of lost, hopeless, helpless despair on that woman's face was too much to bear.
The thought that that sickening piece of filth had his kids watch this makes me feel physically nauseous.
Sometimes I almost wish that there really was a hell - and that the fairy in charge of who goes there was actually moral.
Posted by: Lee Harrison | September 19, 2007 5:05 AM
On the suggestion side for that, I doubt there's anything you can do to get the psychobabble people to do their jobs properly since I don't believe they are competent to do them anyway
yes, sad to say, the limited amount of health care resources devoted to mental health care were tiny even 30 years ago; now, I see entire mental health care depts. that were designed originally to cover whole cities or counties closing their doors completely due to lack of funding, lack of coverage from HMO's, and the exponentially increasing health care costs.
It's become quite a scary thing for those suffering from any mental health issues whatosoever, with fewer and fewer places to turn for treatment.
Imagine if you were diagnosed with a high risk of a heart attack and had no place to go to even seek treatment?
that's actually just the way it is now in many counties in the US wrt mental health treatment.
HMO's would of course, prefer the drug cos simply develop pills instead of treatment plans, and that's exactly what we see.
this problem is only going to get worse.
far worse.
I do hope that Hillary continues to pick up the pace of health care reform, now that it appears to be yet again a central issue in her campaign.
anything would help more than letting the HMO's continue to fuck everything up.
at the moment, I don't see much to get my hopes up.
what's even worse, is that there appears to be a social stigma against even reporting that you might be experiencing a mental illness of any kind, even though they are just as common as any other physical ailment.
it's like saying you have tourettes is somehow worse than saying you have gallstones.
this too, IMO, contributes to the lack of funding for mental health care in this country, as the stigma logically carries on up to those who make funding decisions, and over time will of course influence the resources available to consumers.
it's like mental health care gets shotgunned by both barrels.
:/
helping to lift the stigma in order for people to feel more comfortable asking for help would at least be a start.
so, kudos to Askyroth for openly talking about what he is dealing with.
my only suggestion would be to try and find a local group therapy session to attend on a weekly basis; that might be helpful.
as to where to find a good group therapist that deals with your specific issues. I don't know, but maybe there is something in the links to the abuse resources (those were just the first two legit ones that came up; likely there are many more).
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 19, 2007 5:20 AM
Sometimes I almost wish that there really was a hell
a convicted abuser in a federal pen for 36 years?
that would qualify as hell in most people's books.
so, in essence, I think your wish was granted. The hubby is very likely currently learning what it means to be abused himself.
humans can create far worse hells than even the most creative among us can imagine.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 19, 2007 5:27 AM
I don't think the world is civilized enough yet that we can readily admit that there are real differences in people on this earth, without causing problems. Nearly constant ethnic killing all over the world is a powerful reminder that many people can't at the same time believe that two groups really can be different (even in small ways), but still treat both groups with equal respect. That said, I don't believe the fact that so many humans are ethically challenged means we have to resist scientific research into those real differences in sexes/races, to better the human condition. Let me explain...
Many people seem convinced that science will prove that every human subgroup is near-perfectly equivalent in basically every trait/skill. I believe all people deserve equal opportunities and treatment, but I don't have the slightest expectation that science will prove the equivalence of every group of people (male/female, races, etc.) in every skill/trait, and I wouldn't want to live in such a world anyway. To ensure survival of our species, we NEED subgroups with substantive differences. Some people seem largely unaffected by the HIV virus, for example. If we found out that Mediterranean people, for example, are much more likely to be resistant, would we dismiss this research as racist toward Hispanics? If not, should we consider it racist/sexist if a well-run study found that a certain race/sex seemed to be better at some types of logic games? It wouldn't mean the difference is essential/genetic, but it is still a measurable difference.
Though I can see faults in Roy's speech, I think it is critical for a free-thinking individual to the admit there are differences in males and females, for example. It would be naive to assume that males and females (or races, etc.) differ only in some "practically insignificant" or only the obvious physical ways, and we don't also differ to some extent in deeper psychological ways or ways that really do promote the fitness of one trait/skill over another. This isn't to say that we should use these differences to enforce a hierarchy upon humans based on some arbitrary criteria and then try to justify poor treatment of some specific subgroup. But if reliable evidence suggests that Chinese people seem to excel in IQ tests more so than Caucasians, I'm perfectly willing to accept that as a statement of fact, for a given snapshot of people and a given definition of IQ. Similarly, if women tend to be more able to form close social bonds than men, that is a wonderful skill to celebrate. If men happen to excel at tests involving spatial skills, that is fine too. The specific skills involved are not critical to my point, so substitute something that doesn't make your blood boil (I've read all three of the above in studies, but I don't feel qualified to judge the accuracy of the specific studies).
Once we've analyzed areas where a certain group might excel, we can then ask the questions and analyze why we think this is the case. I'm sure some of the differences are due to what specific skills your region of birth selected for in the past, and the fact that only one human sex can conceive children, etc. Obviously a huge number of differences are instead mostly due to social circumstance. If we are willing to admit differences between people, we then have the ability to analyze the reasons for those differences and then help people improve themselves in whatever way they choose to (at least for the skills that are not largely genetic, though even that hurdle may start to disappear someday). If we must be politically correct and say everyone is equal in every trait/skill potential, we subjugate the limits of scientific research to things that won't anger people if it ends up that there are real differences in some areas between people. My suggestion is that as science finds those differences, please don't take them so personally. Do argue against the research if you feel it is not scientifically valid, but don't argue against it because your ethical intuitions lead make you hope it isn't true. Let the science inform your ethical judgments, but your morality of equal treatment shouldn't depend only on the slowly shifting sands of scientific knowledge and your hope that, scientifically, every person has equivalent potential in basically every area. Even if the relative differences are small, they likely still exist. What is the point of pushing for sexual/cultural diversity if we must be so politically correct that we are not willing to admit that different people have different viewpoints, experiences, and abilities, at least to some extent, and these traits might more often/generally apply also to their group?
Though outliers on the high end of an "intelligence scale" are by definition a relatively small number, it is often these outliers that make great breakthroughs we need to advance research and technology. To dismiss them as not being "the drivers of society" is discounting their importance. This is true no matter if those outliers in question are female or male, what race they are, etc.
I'm sure I'll be labeled as some kind of racist/sexist for posting this, but I'm going to click post anyway, because I strongly believe we need to be intellectually honest and not discourage real research into human evolution and capacity, but that we can do so in a way that does not force us into ethical dilemmas concerning the results of the research.
Posted by: EB | September 19, 2007 5:28 AM
#5 - I'm pretty sure he's alluding to the fact that the Y chromosome is so much smaller than the X chromosome.
If you're female, you get an equal contribution from each parent.
Mitochondria are really separate lifeforms. They've been able to shed a large number of genes due to their consistent and mostly safe environment (are there viruses that target mitochondria and chloroplasts?), but I don't think we get to claim their DNA as our own.
Posted by: Thanny | September 19, 2007 5:35 AM
ahh, EB, where were you when EO Wilson was getting death threats for publishing Sociobiology?
*sigh*
I do hope that your attitude will eventually become mainstream (even within the scientific community, let alone the public).
I'd be happy to share any flak you receive for your post. Not only does the subject (sociobiology) generate much heated controversy, but the research involved relates directly to many subjects covered in this blog, from development, to psychology, to evolution.
However, personally, I still would consider the more important issue for this thread to be the one of domestic violence, specifically.
I do hope that sociobiology might be a topic where a new discussion thread might open some time, and it would be a point of focus.
I have little hope, however, based on past experiences trying to blog the topic on a public forum, that it would get much beyond the meta-analysis stage.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 19, 2007 5:43 AM
Thanny @16,
If you're female, you get an equal contribution from each parent.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. That might be true if we look only at nuclear DNA, since as you point out the X is bigger than the Y. Female or male, though, we all got our mtDNA from our mothers. You are (verging towards) correct, I suppose, insofar as inheritance of a paternal X (i.e., being female) offsets the "extra" maternal inheritance of mtDNA a bit more than does inheritance of the father's Y, the latter chromosome being smaller.
Mitochondria are really separate lifeforms... I don't think we get to claim their DNA as our own
Protoeukaryotic chauvinist! The "our" you speak of is a chimera. We (and virtually all our eukaryote cousins) are the result of the amalgamation of an early eukaryote with a prokaryote (two prokaryotes, in the case of our relatives the plants). The mtDNA is as much "ours" as the nuclear DNA. Anyway, a fair bit of our original mtDNA has, as I understand it, migrated to the nucleus. I'm not about to go in and shove it back out for being "foreign".
That ancient marriage, BTW, continues to have profound effects today (over and above being able to use oxygen, I mean). If you haven't already, check out Mark Ridley's Mendel's Demon, which suggests among other things that endosymbiotic organelles explain why we have gender (not sex, which we'd have anyway, but the male/female distinction).
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | September 19, 2007 6:02 AM
I won't watch the video. Won't do it. I'm sure it will be on I-Caught's funniest rape's or Fox's World's Greatest Horrors Captured and Replayed for Your Entertainment show.
Can't stand people's misery. Can't watch it. Have a hard time accepting that there are people out there that want to see things like this.
Posted by: Ezekiel Buchheit | September 19, 2007 6:47 AM
"If we found out that Mediterranean people, for example, are much more likely to be resistant, would we dismiss this research as racist toward Hispanics?"
If we did find such a difference, what makes you so sure that it would be due to a genetic factor and not due to a difference in lifestyle? By assuming that ANY difference between two groups of people who happen to have genetic differences can be ascribed to those genetic differences, and not to any other differences between the groups, such as lifestyle or upbringing, it is YOU who are 'dismissing' potentially useful remedies.
Some 'races' are apparently more succeptible to heart disease than others. Since lifestyle is known to be a factor in heart disease, should we not pursue the possibility that it may be the different lifestyles of those 'races' that are responsible? An avenue far more useful than the genetic one, since it offers the possibility of transferring the benefits of that lifestyle to other 'races', in a way that we cannot transfer genetic advantages.
Basically, the assumption that advantages must always be genetic, and the refusal to consider any other possibility, is extremely popular with people who have no desire to remove those advantages, and are looking for an excuse to do nothing about them.
Posted by: Ruth | September 19, 2007 6:57 AM
"What is the point of pushing for sexual/cultural diversity if we must be so politically correct that we are not willing to admit that different people have different viewpoints, experiences, and abilities, at least to some extent, and these traits might more often/generally apply also to their group?"
You are conflating individual differences with differences between groups. The two are actually to a certain extent contradictory. By saying 'group A have trait X and group B have trait Y', you are actually DENYING the possibility of diversity within those groups, and treating all members of a particular group as if they were more alike than they in fact are.
Gender and racial stereotyping do not celebrate diversity, they reject it. They may offer a variety of acknowledged traits, but they do not give choice, since each individual is only offered one option, the one corresponding to their gender or race. Anyone who displays traits which are 'unexpected' for their gender has a much harder time getting those traits acknowleged than someone of the gender for which those traits are 'expected'. In short, many maths teachers are slower to recognise mathematical ability in girls than in boys. We see what we expect to see.
Diversity requires that since small statistical differences between groups cannot tell us anything useful about an individual member of one of those groups, we relegate such differences to the realm of 'interesting, but useless' information, i.e. trivia.
Posted by: Ruth | September 19, 2007 7:17 AM
36 years sounds like an urban legend to me. And why would this be a federal rather than a state offense? Can anyone confirm the truth of the "36 years in a federal pen"?
Mike Haubrich wrote: "If abuse is a learned behavior, which I believe it to be, I want to know what sort of follow-up treatment is being given to the children who were daily witnesses to this. How are they being treated to understand that their father's behavior was not normal?"
I'm not sure there's a way to get the children to understand this on a visceral, as opposed to academic, level. True and very sad story:
I worked at a shelter for domestic violence victims. One day my co-workers and I brought stuffed animals for the children. An angelic-looking little girl, probably 3 or 4 years old, immediately picked out a plush green frog and began to hug it. Within half a minute or so, a fierce expression came over her face as she put her thumbs at the frog's throat and began to repeatedly beat its head against the floor.
Posted by: Jud | September 19, 2007 7:25 AM
It's certainly possible that there may be biological differences in abilities between males and females, but I'd find the claims that such differences have been found a lot more credible if their proponents demonstrated that they had adequately controlled for various biases and environmental influences (the "Pygmalion effect", Wikipedia cited for convenience, is the first one that comes to mind, but not the only one). Many, especially those reporting research secondhand or trying to draw large-scale conclusions from various studies, don't even seem to have heard of or considered such influences, instead naively attributing any relatively consistent differences, in test results or behavioral inclinations, between groups to genetic influences or, in terms of gender differences, to the direct effects of hormones on the brain (what I pejoratively call the "Two Humors" model). I'd also be more favorably inclined if the attempts to communicate those results to the public made clearer that 1) the differences measured are almost invariably of a few percentage points, not the radical gap the popular Mars/Venus model (or the "women are simply inferior" hypothesis about the pay gap) would suggest, and reflect averages, not absolutes (my daughter, for instance, impresses pretty much everyone who observes her with her apparent spatial abilities, despite the general perception of boys and men as "better" at spatial tasks).
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 19, 2007 7:46 AM
First rather than perpetrating the myths of domestic violence in another thread on the Internet, in the commission of domestic violence women are not lesser than men as perpetrators, but somewhat higher. The basic (rough) population numbers I got from the CDC archives a decade ago are: Man-on-man (homosexual) 2% of all couples. Woman-on-woman (lesbian) 3% of all couples. Man-on-woman (heterosexual) 2+%. Woman-on-man (heterosexual) 3%.
Women are also more likely to use deadly force or weapons when they attack their partner, regardless of gender.
You can find out more about it if you wish because having been through the wringer with a violent, abusive ex-spouse and horrific divorce and three-year custody battle, I'm a little to scarred to go beyond pointing out that what you've likely been taught is political bullshit and not reality. It'll take some work because it's not easy to sift through the politisation in the initial stages of fighting domestic violence it was female-oriented organizations that made the claims and took all the space. But it's not like it's not known. It's been known to psychological researchers since the late 1980's that the NOW figures were bullshit and since the 1990's what the actual basic rates domestic violence from a scientific (not a crime report) basis.
Second, it's not always mental. Some people have a hyper adrenal reaction to stress because (according to the theory) they have low seeratonin levels. The current treatment is Prozac or some other seratonin re-uptake inhibitor.
Anyway, have to go.
Posted by: Moses | September 19, 2007 7:46 AM
I had understood there was a -slight- statistically-significant higher IQ in men? Even so, just because the average is a point or two higher doesn't mean that every man is smarter than every woman.
Hell, if it's true that men have more variance, wouldn't that mean that a bunch of women, clustered around the mean, would be smarter than a significant portion of the men?
Posted by: katie | September 19, 2007 7:47 AM
"I have to laugh when I hear conservatives blame the system because boys are underperforming"
Especially when you remember that when certain ethnic groups are more likely to have problems in school, they refuse to blame any problems in the system and instead blame either inferior genes or culture. Hypocrites.
Posted by: Brandon P. | September 19, 2007 8:01 AM
It's also worth considering the effects of practice and expectancy on measured abilities, and the fact that historicially IQ tests have, as I understand it, been mainly developed by men (this becomes significant in the case that men and women are about equal in terms of their overall ability to perform a given task but tend to approach it in different ways). It's also worth noting that women especially are encouraged, sometimes explicitly, to "play dumb" in order to be more appealing to men who "don't like girls who read big books"; is it really safe to assume that this habit will magically disappear, for each and every woman who has adopted it, when a Scantron is shoved under her nose?
There are so many confounding factors that, to my knowledge, no ethical human experiment has been developed to control for, that the blithe assumption that consistent measured differences, especially those that correlate with cultural prejudices, are purely biological seems more like wishful thinking than sound science.
That said, I'll admit that there are some traditionally male roles in which women will definitely never be equal to men and which women should not attempt to play: "sperm donor" comes to mind. ;/
Incidentally, good point, because I've met entirely too many people who are quite willing to believe that the fact that men tend to score a little higher than women, on average, on certain tasks most definitely does mean that every man is smarter than every woman, at least as concerns those tasks.
Also, Moses:
1) Citations please?
2) WTF does that have to do with the sentiments expressed in my post?
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 19, 2007 8:30 AM
Ruth, I believe I stated that I actually agree with your first point in the same paragraph you quote from my post:
"It wouldn't mean the difference is essential/genetic"
Whether or not any differences between groups are genetic or social, we just shouldn't deny them. We should do what we can to learn about them and their causes to give everyone the information necessary to excel and enjoy life. I have no interest in making excuses to do nothing concerning the condition of my fellow humans - much the opposite, in fact. I'm encouraging research into these differences to help improve life for everyone. I'm just worried that examining differences will encourage some misguided people to be less tolerant, instead of becoming more tolerant. I'm concerned I will not live to see the day where tolerance is expected, not the exception.
You say that genetic differences can't be transfered to other groups, but that may be a temporary technological limitation, depending on future medical/biological research and decisions about any ethical issues involved in each case.
I also agree that the differences between racial/sex groups are likely very small in most cases and it is problematic to specialize from a group to an individual. But imagine we found, for example, that the average Germanic tribe descendant, due to slight inherited differences in ATP, had slightly more efficient muscle contractions. It might be a tiny difference, but one with a significant effect on the result of a marathon. To use a real-life example, Europeans have higher rates of cystic fibrosis (a genetic disease). After taking this into account, a doctor may be able to adjust her probabilities when quickly diagnosing a patient with cystic fibrosis-like symptoms. The trend of science thus far is that more and more traits seem to have at least some genetic influence - certainly not everything, but likely more than we know about now. It may be scary to think that too many of our traits might be even partially genetic, but our hope that those numbers are small shouldn't slow our scientific investigation into this area.
Most diversity plans define diversity by sex or race. If one doesn't believe that sex/race are good ways to increase "true diversity", because the differences between sex/race groups are too small, on average, then we need an alternate definition of diversity. For example a college might consider instead (or in addition) diversifying using some non-sex/race traits such as ensuring that they have a reasonable selection of low, middle, and high income students and students that come from single parent, gay/lesbian parents, and traditional families, etc. Such a plan might cool off some of the current heat over affirmative action but still provide significant advantages to the poor or single parent families or all races.
Posted by: EB | September 19, 2007 8:41 AM
When I was six I collapsed in front of a crossing guard who then called an ambulance. The hospital found a blood clot in my brain and the x-rays revealed a history of skull fractures. They called the cops, who had a long talk with my parents. Thanks to that talk, the bone breaking ended: no more getting crowned with frying pans and rolling pins. Also, the ear boxing stopped, but that may have been an oversight. (My eardrums healed, thanks for asking.)
The battering did not end. My mom had learned as a kid how to fight with her fists, and she had a overhand right that was often good for a knockout, but sometimes I'd get only the blue flashes and stay conscious. All my eyeglasses got broken by her while they were on my face.
Where was my dad? Standing guard, keeping the neighbors from interfering.
Why did I get singled out for the violence? I think it was because I was the well-behaved one. My brother and sister were rebellious and would not obey. I would. I tried to obey better, trying to improve myself, but all my efforts came to nothing.
When I turned 21 I was legally allowed to leave, but not a day before.
I can feel sorry for the woman in the video, but I feel a lot sorrier for battered children. The law works against them all the way down the line. The police will intervene only when the violence gets forced in their faces, and then all they will do is whatever it takes to make their job easier. Cops don't fix things: their answer to everything is more violence.
Posted by: Broken Spirit | September 19, 2007 8:47 AM
I notice that video cameras seem to be playing an increasing role in bringing things in into the open. I have seen recent videos of a protestor having his leg broken and one of a man at a Kerry meeting being tasered. In neither case did the violence seem justified.
However this case - a man videotaping himself committing two crimes at once; spouse abuse and child abuse, is maybe worth a Darwin award.
Posted by: sailor | September 19, 2007 9:00 AM
The only problem with that men-have-the-greater-variance hypothesis is that it makes predictions which aren't true.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 19, 2007 9:23 AM
Men can breast-feed. It takes surprisingly little to get men to lactate - they're provided with almost-fully-functional mammary glands, after all, and some minor hormone treatments are all that's needed to get the milk flowing.
As for why IQ couldn't be part of a sexual dimorphism - well, it's because women have been discriminated against, both historically and recently. People who have been the victims of discrimination obviously cannot possess any of the negative traits allotted to them by the discrimination, and are probably superior to the discriminators in that way. That's what being a victim is all about!
Posted by: Caledonian | September 19, 2007 9:40 AM
Disappointing, PZ.
How is putting a wife beater and "Larry Summers" type arguments in the same post any different from shouting "Stalin was an atheist, so there"!?
And how are the hysterical reactions to Summers' speech any different from the creationists' misrepresentations of scientific statements as they try to "refute" evolution? How are they different from the Christian Right's babbling about their rights being violated whenever they aren't able to force their views on everybody else?
Just last week, a group of female faculty at UC-Davis successfully pressured the university to rescind its invitation to Summers to speak at the board dinner. This was happening about the same time as another UC school hired and - under right-wing pressure - immediately fired Erwin Chemerinsky as Law School Dean.
Dogmatism and censorship stink no matter what ideological label their proponents prefer to wear.
Posted by: bullfighter | September 19, 2007 9:47 AM
Katie: (#25) - Yes. If the variances are differ but the means are the same, there are going to be lots of less intelligent men out there.
#21:
Let me be the first to say: "Lewontin's fallacy", with a touch of Lysenkoism.It seems that you are saying "diversity requires that there be no diversity". Or perhaps there is micro-diversity and macro-diversity?
Posted by: other bill | September 19, 2007 9:53 AM
Blake Stacey:
The link you provided attacks a straw man and doesn't address Summers' hypothesis at all. This study is about earning PhD's, while Summers was talking about getting tenure at Harvard. There is a world of difference between the two. I've done the former (damn, came close to doing it twice), but my mere presence here, in a comment thread of a blog, proves that I am too much of a lazy bum to ever dream of the latter.
It is bullshit to try to falsify Summers' hypothesis by looking at the 95th percentiles of distributions, or even at 99th percentile, when he was talking about roughly the top 0.01%. It is also bullshit to reduce the relevant ability to IQ when it is well-known that success in a research career depends on a set of factors of which IQ is but one (and possibly not even relevant beyond the 99th percentile level).
So is Summers' hypothesis true? Nobody knows; that's the point. Summers said we needed more research into the issue. The widespread reaction was (and still is, see my comment above) that no, we don't need no stinkin' research, all we need is the Revealed Truth.
Posted by: bullfighter | September 19, 2007 10:03 AM
Well done EB for trying to inject reason into the debate. There seems nothing more sensible than saying "if there is a reason why this group of people do not appear to benefit so much, what is that reason and what should we do about it?"
Unfortunately as many people have found out this sort of scientific question runs counter to the received wisdom (that everyone is equally proficient at everything) and is shouted down.
We can all provide anecdotes that polish our individual view of the world and its inequalities - but we need to know the truth before we can decide what we should do about it.
Be careful, its a jungle out there.
Posted by: Bunjo | September 19, 2007 10:12 AM
Word. We're not born with equal opportunities in life; it's the duty of a liberal democratic state to confer them. If biological evidence shows boys are slower learners than girls, we should spend that much more time and money educating boys to bring them up to the same level. Or vice versa. An equal application of the state's powers will just magnify biological inequity, which is no better than social inequity.
So we don't even need to know the answer here. If girls are outperforming boys in school, we should devote more resources to boys than we are, regardless of the reason for the gap. It doesn't matter if that means boys are getting more than a "fair share;" "fair" is whatever it takes to level the playing field, which may not be level to begin with. We should create equality, not assume it.
Posted by: Epistaxis | September 19, 2007 11:16 AM
". . . as if men and women are separately evolving species."
The genders can evolve differently as evidenced by the very fact that different sexes even exist. Why should physical differences among the sexes not also extend to the functioning of the material brain/evolutionary psychology?
Posted by: Rick | September 19, 2007 11:17 AM
Is it just me or do all the arguments ("Sexual dimorphism! Selectivity! Yadda-yadda!") sound a great deal like, "Well, we all know that them there nigras just can't do that there brain-work! We got scientific stuff that proves that"? I realize that there's a fair few mouth-breathers out there that believe that, sadly enough.
PZ, you kind of opened up the flood gates on this one. I'm just waiting to see how long it takes before the word, "strident" is bandied about. I see "hysterical" has already been used.
Posted by: Bryn | September 19, 2007 11:45 AM
Posted by: llewelly | September 19, 2007 11:57 AM
Posted by: llewelly | September 19, 2007 12:03 PM
That (indiscriminate levelling of the field) is a repressive and counter-productive idea - though you may not be smart enough to realise it for yourself. It's effectively what the UK government has already been doing, by lowering standards of education and examinations such that the most intelligent individuals are unable to shine much above the retarded ones - and universities and employers then get stuck with having to provide remedial training, even if they successfully apply their own tests to sort out the good from the bad.
People are not born equal and sometimes those inequalities are necessary for the furtherment of society as a whole, eg the high IQ individuals are needed for doing the things which only high IQ people can do - including first being permitted to acquire the superior levels of education which only they can genuinely do even if the government gives out free passes like candy to all the failures in order to obscure the differences.
It's vitally important to discriminate - but on the basis of real things, such as IQ and competence and honesty etc, rather than on fake prejudiced things, such as gender or colour, as tends to happen at present.
Posted by: SEF | September 19, 2007 12:03 PM
Epistaxis@36:
Harrison Bergeron would like a word with you.
Posted by: Bechamel | September 19, 2007 12:09 PM
Azkyroth:
I've some experience with anger control issues myself, and I have a few observations/suggestions that have helped me.
1) I've intentionally, over long practice, developed the instinct to avoid touching anyone when I'm angry. No contact means it's a good deal easier to avoid hurting them.
2) My parent's always emphasized hitting a pillow or some clay or something if you're mad. This doesn't work for me precisely because you can't really hurt either of those objects and that just makes it more frustrating. I make a point of having something around the house that it's OK and safe for me to break. That way, if I need to I can leave the area and go smash something until I've blown off some steam. Maybe some cheap shelves in the garage or something? (I've got an old water heater that I just pound dents into)
Not sure if either observation will help you, but I thought I'd offer the advice at least. My issues started at a young enough age and I started working on them early enough that it's largly in hand now, and I hope one day you'll be able to say the same. The important thing to my mind is that you know you have a problem and are working to fix it, that alone is admirable.
Posted by: Mechalith | September 19, 2007 12:18 PM
Now where did I read this...
Just sayin'.
Every discussion on sociobiology or evo-psych seems to devolve rapidly into a shouting match and a flurry of cites and studies which the other side always insists are meaningless... I'm firmly on the genes-are-important/gender-is-not-a-fiction side, but I'm routinely embarrassed by some of the people trying to argue the case; a lot of the proponents of the evo-psych view, especially in the popular press, seem to do little more than revel in the political incorrectness of it all. I remember an article in the Times or Guardian or somewhere whose headline was "Sorry women, you need men after all" and whose tone went rapidly downhill from there. I would have liked to see a response by a female physician - "Sorry men, you're going to die younger."
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | September 19, 2007 1:05 PM
Bryn:
Yeah, sure. And Darwinists are social Darwinists. And atheists are like Stalin. Your grouping makes just as much sense.
Posted by: bullfighter | September 19, 2007 1:41 PM
Aye, matey! Where would Calico Jack be without 'is wenches? Arr.
Gender differences need more research, eh? Does this need more research too, or do you think we already know the full effect there? Recall that Larry Summers could have influenced who got tenure.
Posted by: hf | September 19, 2007 1:42 PM
Harrison Bergeron would like a word with you.
Posted by: Bechamel
Don't you mean Diana Moon Glampers?
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | September 19, 2007 2:24 PM
If we did find such a difference, what makes you so sure that it would be due to a genetic factor and not due to a difference in lifestyle?
because it really isn't that hard to control for general factors like that, provided you get a large enough sample size.
besides, while you START with a correlation, you certainly don't stop there.
the next set of studies would of course be specifically looking at the causative factors behind the correlation.
that's science, at least, that's how it's supposed to work, anyway.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 19, 2007 3:41 PM
Many, especially those reporting research secondhand or trying to draw large-scale conclusions from various studies, don't even seem to have heard of or considered such influences,
as expected, this debate will endlessly degrade into a discussion of meta-analysis, without even bothering to examine the actual studies that spawn the meta-analysis to begin with.
can't you see what a waste of time that is, if you really want to get at the guts of the science underlying the "secondhand" analysis?
not like this isn't the direction EVERY public discussion of the larger issue of sociobiology ends up taking, but I thought, just this once, it might be avoided.
*sigh*
seriously, and my last comment before this degrades into a silly debate of how "Rush Limbaugh" types misuse the results of studies that would be considered to fall under the purview of sociobiology:
if you want to debate the merits of studies elucidating the genetics of behavior, or of any trait for that matter...
LOOK AT THE PRIMARY LITERATURE
ignore the damn media meta-analysis.
If, OTOH, you actually want to discuss how the media and armchair analysts misuse behavioral data, feel free to continue in the same vein. Hell, that debate has been raging for ages, long before Wilson released Sociobiology.
There's a reason that Trivers is considered to be one of the largest contributors to modern evolutionary theory of the last century, and it's not because of his politics.
His hypotheses have been extensively tested, and found to be sound.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 19, 2007 3:57 PM
Every discussion on sociobiology or evo-psych seems to devolve rapidly into a shouting match and a flurry of cites and studies which the other side always insists are meaningless...
I remember an article in the Times or Guardian or somewhere whose headline was "Sorry women, you need men after all" and whose tone went rapidly downhill from there. I would have liked to see a response by a female physician - "Sorry men, you're going to die younger."
now all you have to do is disconnect these two entirely different things.
sure, there are debates within the scientific community, but they are hardly going to be resolved by the results of popularity contests within the media.
those decrying the value of evolution in explaining human behavior have to be very careful to explain what exempts any specific trait under study in humans, before discounting evolutionary hypotheses.
saying there is no control for environmental effects is insufficient without actually analyzing a specific study to see whether controls were in place to begin with. You can't just postulate any specific study ignored environmental effects without actually looking at the study in question.
Moreover, many secondhand reports of "controversial" studies are looking at studies that are indeed only correlative in nature. The scientists doing these studies are only looking for suggestions for further research, based on the results of the correlation, conclusions are tentative at best at this stage, without further studies attempting to look at the potential causative factors involved. However, we often wouldn't even have a clue as to what the causative factors might be without the correlative studies to begin with.
On top of that, as you all should know by now, teasing out just how much influence genetics has on a specific trait is often quite difficult; most traits are in fact, quite variable. that's not saying there is no genetic influence, it's saying that it's not completely controlled by genetics.
think about all of that before making sweeping proclamations about the value of evolution in studying human behavior.
The danger is, in letting the results of secondhand analysis dictate you opinion on the science, you essentially reject the idea that evolutionary theory can explain human behavior.
be sure that's what you want to do before you do it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 19, 2007 4:12 PM
No no no!! That CAN'T be true!!
yes, soylent green IS people!
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 19, 2007 4:23 PM
IQ may be sexually dimorphic. But you have to take the evidence with a grain of salt. It's highly possible that the studies that conclude "wimminz are genetically chained to the kitchen" are just a sexist variation on the "black people are naturally lazy" post hoc racist bullshit.
And because of the complete dominance of the white patriarchy for thousands of years, we should take an extra-critical view of evidence that merely reinforces existing prejudices.
Posted by: stogoe | September 19, 2007 4:25 PM
Comment 41 takes comment 36 and turns it on its head. Comment 36 says that equality should be achieved by pulling everyone up to the same standard. Comment 41 misinterprets that as saying that equality should be achieved by pressing everyone down to the same standard.
Stalin has already been mentioned, so I'll use another Marxist metaphor. The USSR and China achieved equality (never mind the higher ranks of the Party...) by abolishing the bourgeoisie. Western-central Europe (most famous example: Sweden) achieved equality by abolishing the proletariat. The latter, not the former, is what comment 36 suggests.
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 19, 2007 4:34 PM
Concerning the actual topic, it may well be that there is a biological difference. It may well be that the male:female ratio among full professors, if left to biology alone, would be 60:40 or even 70:30 as opposed to 50:50. Hey, perhaps 80:20, who knows. But in Austria it was 93:7 last time I checked (tendency shrinking), and that even though the ratio among first-semester students is 42:58 (with a nice gradual change the closer you get to the full professors). Let me make an argument from personal incredulity.
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 19, 2007 4:42 PM
Gender differences need more research, eh? Does this need more research too, or do you think we already know the full effect there? Recall that Larry Summers could have influenced who got tenure.
That looks like important research of the kind Summers called for. Obviously, we need more of that.
I don't know how your last sentence connects with the rest. I'd blindly guess that women got tenure under Summers at a higher rate than under his predecessors, but that it has nothing to do with the person of the president (whose intervention in the tenure decisions would be quite extraordinary) but with the general time trend.
Posted by: bullfighter | September 19, 2007 5:59 PM
David Marjanović: In your last post, you expressed Summers' view exactly.
In the one before that, you need to take into account what is feasible with limited resources.
Posted by: bullfighter | September 19, 2007 6:06 PM