[lbo-talk] Summers does it again

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Wed Jan 19 11:32:44 PST 2005


Jon:
> That may be so as a general statement, but in this particular dispute
> we are talking about some specific capabilities (involving the ability
> to do and/or understand science and/or math). These capabilities are
> rather different, in fact -- math is not the same thing as science, and
> understanding a subject is not the same thing as doing productive
> research in it. And despite the brave talk of some neuroscientists, we
> have no notion yet about how the human brain does things like math and
> science -- what specific mechanisms are involved in doing any
> intellectual work of this kind.

The point I am trying to make is that why does math is considered a "higher" cognitive skill than, say, writing poetry, or why managing complacent zombies in some corporation is considered a "higher" managerial skill than raising unruly children? If we considered the complexity of the task and the cognitive skills alone, most reasonable people would conclude that writing poetry can be as intellectually demanding as solving math problems, and that handling children requires more "people's skills" than overseeing adults who know what to do.

Therefore, admitting that people have different sets of skills and those differences are most likely rooted in our biological differences makes sense from a scientific point of view.

What you (and most of us, I believe) find objectionable are ex post facto rationalizations that justify differences in status and privilege by linking them to some physiological attributes. Men occupy more prestigious positions? It must be because they are smarter, or work harder, or any other similar bullshit excuse.

What I am trying to say is that just because some idiots are making those bullshit excuses is not a reason of denying what can be otherwise a valid scientific claim just to undercut their argument. A better way is to skip the message altogether, and destroy the messenger - because it is all about the messenger and his status, not the message.

That, btw, reminds me of a British (I believe) flick I saw many years ago and whose title escapes me at the moment. In this flick that takes place in South Africa under apartheid, the cop who was after the protagonist (an anti-apartheid British journo) was captured by ANC fighters. In the final scene, he engages the journo in a conversation in which he explains why what the SA cops are doing is right and how his capture means nothing because he will be swapped for an imprisoned ANC activist. The journo listens to him politely and then pulls his gun and fires right between the cop's eyes. I consider that an appropriate and measured response. You do not debate the fuckers - just destroy them if you can.

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list