2blowhards.com: More on Summers

In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

CultureBlogs
• Sasha Castel
• AC Douglas
• Out of Lascaux
• The Ambler
• PhilosoBlog
• Modern Art Notes
• Cranky Professor
• Mike Snider on Poetry
• Silliman on Poetry
• Felix Salmon
• Gregdotorg
• BookSlut
• Polly Frost
• Polly and Ray's Forum
• Cronaca
• Plep
• Stumbling Tongue
• Brian's Culture Blog
• Banana Oil
• Scourge of Modernism
• Visible Darkness
• Seablogger
• Thomas Hobbs
• Blog Lodge
• Leibman Theory
• Goliard Dream
• Third Level Digression
• Here Inside
• My Stupid Dog
• W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
• Andrew Sullivan
• The Corner at National Review
• Steve Sailer
• Samizdata
• Junius
• Joanne Jacobs
• CalPundit
• Natalie Solent
• A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
• Rational Parenting
• Public Interest.co.uk
• Colby Cosh
• View from the Right
• Pejman Pundit
• Spleenville
• God of the Machine
• One Good Turn
• CinderellaBloggerfella
• Liberty Log
• Daily Pundit
• InstaPundit
• MindFloss
• Catallaxy Files
• Greatest Jeneration
• Glenn Frazier
• Jane Galt
• Jim Miller
• Limbic Nutrition
• Innocents Abroad
• Chicago Boyz
• James Lileks
• Cybrarian at Large
• Hello Bloggy!
• Setting the World to Rights
• Travelling Shoes

Miscellaneous
• Redwood Dragon
• IMAO
• The Invisible Hand
• ScrappleFace
• Daze Reader
• Lynn Sislo
• The Fat Guy
• Jon Walz

Links

Our Last 50 Referrers

« Erma Bombeck | Main | Barbara Leigh and The King »

February 11, 2005

More on Summers

Fenster Moop writes:

Dear Blowhards,

Well, here's something that's likely to get Steve Sailer's blood pressure up. The presidents of MIT, Stanford and Princeton have issued a joint statement rebuking Larry Summers for his statement about women and science. (Article here).

The Presidents, two of whom are women and all three of whom are scientists, write: ""The question we must ask as a society is not 'can women excel in math, science and engineering?' -- Marie Curie exploded that myth a century ago -- but 'how can we encourage more women with exceptional abilities to pursue careers in these fields?' "

Funny, I thought the pursuit of scientific knowledge was primary and the instrumental/political issues secondary.

But then I'm not a scientist, like these presidents, so I wouldn't know.

At the top of Steve's wep page are three quotes:

Live not by lies. - Solzhenitsyn

To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle. - Orwell

Knowledge is good. - Animal House

And that of course is Steve's theme: better to see it all and act accordingly; big mistakes get made, and get compounded, when we refuse to recognize what is in front of us.

I respect that view though I think it too has its limits. The creation of cultural values is in an of itself part of the natural selection process, and nowhere is it written that ideas conforming the closest to the truth will always be adaptive.

I suppose that must be what the presidents had in mind: that we will all be better off if for the moment we pathologize the impartial pursuit of scientific knowledge and make it subsidiary to "where we need to go".

Something like that anyway.

Or it could be more prosaic. Shirley Tilghman, Princeton's president, recently announced that her institution would strive to be the "Ellis Island" for aspiring women scientists. If Harvard doesn't want 'em, send 'em here.

Something like that anyway. Suggesting that the presidents' ringing statements of values (and Summers about-face too) may have a more than a note of institutional self-interest in them.

Downright Darwinian.

Best,

Fenster

P.S. If you didnt' see it, Megan O'Rourke in Slate mounts the most vigorous and credible assault on Summers' statement I've yet seen. But that's not saying all that much.

posted by Fenster at February 11, 2005

Comments

"...nowhere is it written that ideas conforming the closest to the truth will always be adaptive."

Very true. In fact truth is recessive in many instances.

That's why we have universities.

The agendizing of knowledge is not new nor the property of feminists or the left in general. Far from it. But it is always constricting and usually self-defeating.

Posted by: Sluggo on February 11, 2005 12:06 PM

How funny---it sounds to me like the Pres's of Princeton, MIT, and Yale are making recruiting hay at the expense of Sommers and Harvard. WE would NEVER say such a thing---please sign the check here. MIT the only one with the credentials to really comment on science and math, no? Well, maybe Princeton has an OK engineering school. If the Pres's of the other schools were really so appalled, they've certainly taken their time commenting.

Posted by: annette on February 11, 2005 12:58 PM

Annette -- its a replay of the Cornel West poach.

Posted by: Sluggo on February 11, 2005 1:43 PM

Fr Richard John Neuhaus spent part of his "Idea of a University" (a la Cardinal Newman) talk at Columbia (this week) defending Summers. His point was: the people who fulminate when you dare to suggest that there might be differences between men and women are analogous to those who object to having Christians around, because they are "imposing" their beliefs on others, and what right have they to do that when it's all relative?

Posted by: winifer skattebol on February 11, 2005 2:19 PM

winifer skattebol,

The question is: whose beliefs.

The increasingly sophisticated mapping of the brain (male and female) discloses significant verifiable, measureable, structural differences. Those differences don't have to, but possibly do manifest themselves in different aptitudes, different strengths and weaknesses.

Isn't the university about the fearless pursuit of the truth, where'er it leads? The university presidents are not only imposing their belief system to stifle this pursuit; they are traitors to the very tradition it is their job to uphold.

P.S. But then, we're all grownups, aren't we? None of this applies anymore. All window dressing. Power: that's what it's all about; that's where it's at.

Posted by: ricpic on February 12, 2005 10:01 AM

I could be misremembering here and don't have the time to check, but ...

Didn't Summers make his remarks at an informal gathering? Part of what has shocked me about the viciousness of the response to his words is that he wasn't issuing a formal, to-the-public address. It seems to me that when officials speak formally and in public it behooves them to watch their words and be very positive, and it behooves us to know that they're saying what they're and how they're saying it largely for p-r and waving-the-flag reasons. That's OK, by and large. But wasn't Summers speaking informally to fellow academic professionals about a genuine topic? Why shouldn't he not just be expected but be applauded for raising a legit (if hard-to-stomach for sensitive souls) question informally and among fellow professionals? Who are presumably jointly interested in exploring a topic?

And didn't he phrase his remarks roughly this way: biological differences may help explain some of the differences in the numbers of men and women in some/i> fields? That's another thing that's taken me aback: how much his words have been misrepresented. Political people have taken what he said and turned it into: Girls can't do science. Which is offensive not just to him but to good sense. Why shouldn't the rest of us enjoy slamming the misrepresenters for carrying on in a bad and destructive way? Dirty attacks of the kind they're making are actively harmful to civilized debate.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 12, 2005 11:19 AM

Political people have taken what he said and turned it into: Girls can't do science.

The trouble with Summer's comments are that is exactly what they *will* be transformed into. Remember when we're talking about the Summers' comment, he is *not* a scientist in the field. He was musing about an area that he knows as much as we do.

Unfortunately, while we can muse about nuking North Korea and be ignored, the president of the United States can't do the same without causing a major international incident. Likewise Dr. Summers, given his position of power in the university, does not have the freedom to make this sort of comment without major repercussion.

I will note that he was adding nothing to the debate that you or I aren't adding by our discussion here. It's merely that *his* remarks have cost.

In my opinion, his comments are harmful to his university, which is bad enough. But I also believe that in some small insignificant way, his comments add to the widely held opinion that "women can't do science". A misrepresentation of what he said? Of course, but it's an inevitable misrepresentation. And that opinion *is* corrosive. And it costs the sciences competent scientist who could advance the field.

Posted by: Tom West on February 13, 2005 8:18 PM

Mr. West:

Hmmm. Let's see now. If this was the year 1100, we would have to conclude, by your logic above, that we shouldn't study Aristotle because his thought challenged the largely Platonic theology of the Church fathers. Hence the entirely predictable (and accurately predicted) consequence would be the growth of skepticism and the undercutting of the Christian religion, which should not be tolerated because it would expose countless individuals to the threat of eternal damnation. So, based on your statements above, I must assume that you would agree with the Bishop of Paris who clamped down on those dangerous lunatics over at the university.

Perhaps next we will institute an academic version of the Inquisition. I guess Mr. Summers might be forgiven for thinking that it already exists.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on February 14, 2005 12:20 AM

Tom -- I agree with one of your larger points, which I take to be that diplomats, in their public utterances, really ought to be diplomatic. But I differ with you on a few things too. For one thing, Summers wasn't speaking as a diplomat. He was speaking at a conference with fellow professionals, and he had been asked there not to represent Harvard but to be provocative. His remarks were never meant for the public. (Check out this account of the circumstances under which he spoke.) Surely even diplomats should be allowed to speak semi-freely when they aren't speaking publicly.

Another question is: even given that public speech generally needs to be a litle more carefully-watched than private speech does (I have no trouble with this), it also sometimes needs to be opened up to new topics and new thoughts. How can this occur if no one ever risks raising fresh points?

Summers was talking off-the-cuff at a conference with fellow professionals, never expecting his words to go public. He no doubt hoped that the point (and no doubt other points) he was making would start to be thought about a little more directly than it has been thought about up till now. He had tons of research behind his words, and he hedged what he said with lots and lots of "mays" and "perhaps" and "generally speakings." He wasn't by any means making an authoritative public declaration of anything. I don't know how, if such topics and questions are going to be raised, they can be raised any more carefully or respectfully.

(I suspect what you and I really differ on here, though, is that I think these points need to make their way into the public debate, and you think they shouldn't be allowed in. Fair enough.)

Because of all this, I think what a lot of people marvel over where this incident is concerned is less the topic at hand (do men and women differ -- generally speaking and with tons of individual exceptions -- somewhat in terms of some of their abilities), and more the fact that the guy got crucified for raising (in a careful and nonpublic way) a perfectly-legit question. I mean, what if one of the reasons some fields are female-heavy and some fields are male-heavy is that gals and guys tend to have somewhat different dispositions and biologies? It's a point I'd like to see our diplomats and rulers wrestle with more openly. But in any case, the brouhaha goes to show what a stranglehold the Blank Slate p-o-v still has on academia, and on the press. And I think that's what many bloggers are marveling about.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 14, 2005 10:57 AM

I think the truly interesting question is why did Summers cave in almost immediately and promise extremely expensive reparations in terms of bigger quotas for women professors (i.e., lower quotas for men).

Indeed, the entire process has become as ritualized as Kabuki theatre -- the "gaffe," the outrage, the reparations. In my article in the February 28th issue of The American Conservative I offer a new explanation for this common feature on the modern American landscape. Unfortunately, the article is not on-line, but you might find it interesting to pick it up at a newsstand.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on February 14, 2005 6:59 PM

FvB, I'll be honest. I do think that there certain research topics that are not worth pursuing. Studies of human ability are *particularly* prone to abuse, usually because they are simply used to provide "scientific justification" of existing inequalities, (asian immigration exclusion, slavery, etc.) or are (mis)interpreted by much of the population as excuse for not bothering to try (I've heard the "Bell Curve" used more than once to ask "why spend money to educate the uneducatable")

There may be biological differences in abilities between the sexes (although I doubt there's any way to separate the innate ability from environment). But I don't think that there is any benefit to placing them front and centre. The only results are:

To reinforce existing prejudice. Way too many in the hard sciences automatically dismiss the achievements of a women scientist. Summers' remarks help give them a cover of "scientific justification".
Judgement follows belief. In cases where there are equally qualified candidates, people's beliefs will trump. The greater the belief that "women can't excel in science" (not necessarily what he said, but definitely the meme that was spread), the greater the chance that people will follow their gut instincts and turn down women candidates (this is different from above, because the judgers are trying to obtain the best candidate, regardless of sex). There are some examples of this in HR people evaluating people from resumes with randomized photographs and blind auditions for orchestras. In the absence of hard facts (and choosing among the final set of candidates for most jobs is a often a matter of judgment), people's beliefs win out, turning a tilted "natural" ratio into a huge deficit.
Society orders itself to make life even harder for the exceptions. It's far too common for girl's schools to have inadequate physics programs. The more the "girl's can't do science" meme grows (I know, not the research, but does *anyone* actually believe that isn't what will be taken from it...), the less pressure to actually accomodate those who are able and willing.
Less pressure to fix real problems. Sure, we all acknowledge that there's real discrimination, but once we've got "scientific explanation" for it, people naturally use that to justify *any* achievement gap. Natural ability may lie behind 10% of the results, but it'll account for 100% of the reason why we aren't obligated to do anything about it...

And, Michael, a president of an important university or a big company is *never* off the record. It's simply a fact of life. As for the research backing him up, indeed he used the very finest... his daughter giving the trucks that he gave her names...

There may be research, but he was speculating off of personal experience just like the rest of us.

(And yes, he was asked to be provocative. Talk about a big pit of quicksand.)

Posted by: Tom West on February 15, 2005 7:30 AM

I'm one who is not offended by Summers' speculation---I agree that it is a reasonable academic question to noodle over.

BUT...I don't agree that the president of Harvard, speaking with fellow professionals, had any reasonble assumption that his remarks "would never go public." That seems naivete of an unbelievable kind. He's the President of Harvard, for god's sake. If he really thought that...than maybe people named Sommers are too dumb to be the President of Harvard!

Posted by: annette on February 15, 2005 9:33 AM

Mr. West:

Please let me know if I am wrong, but using my hypothetical above, I assume that you would, in fact, have to admit that, given the agenda of the Bishop of Paris, most modern scientific thought should have been suppressed on the grounds that it would place men's souls in jeopardy as undercutting their faith in the Bible and in the patristic explanations of the universe.

My point, of course, is that you seem to be ignoring the question of how far this principle you're enunciating (i.e., the suppression of research and discussion if it threatens sufficiently weighty interests) should be extended. And, perhaps more to the point, who gets to decide how far it should be extended? Virtually every topic is going to piss off or threaten somebody. (I mean, good God, how about all the research that results in new and advanced weaponry?)

How are we going to decide what types of research and discussion should be suppressed going forward? Perhaps you could enlighten me on the method we should employ, and who will get to decide.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on February 15, 2005 12:45 PM

Annette:

I suspect Summers knew exactly what he was doing. by reputation, he is known to be intellectually and personally arrogant and to revel to some extent in his bull-in-china-shop quality. I agree with Michael that his comments need to be discounted due to the less-than-formal venue and context, but I don't doubt he knew he was speaking as Harvard's president when he said what he said.

Steve is right that the interesting story is why the retraction, and why so fast? He hung in there on l'affaire Cornel West in somewhat more robust fashion. Maybe he's getting tired. Maybe faculty and trustees got him to see the light: repent or have Princeton eating our lunch.

Posted by: fenster on February 15, 2005 7:37 PM

How are we going to decide what types of research and discussion should be suppressed going forward? Perhaps you could enlighten me on the method we should employ, and who will get to decide.

Same we decide anything else. By a mixture of social pressure, good/bad press, etc., and, when the opinion is sufficiently one-sided and the possible result so catastrophic, government regulation.

I don't claim to be the ultimate arbiter about these things (however, I'll do my best to push my views, of course). I do claim, however, that there is something to be arbitrated.

And, quite frankly, almost everyone agrees. (Found anyone who believes in the unrestricted right to research germ warfare?) The only question is what those boundaries should be. I believe that the boundary lies beyond simply ensuring human safety to avoiding those areas that are likely to significantly decrease the welfare of society as a whole. Who am I to make such a decision? The same person as you. You push one way, I'll push the other, and we see where society ends up.

Posted by: Tom West on February 16, 2005 8:54 AM

I assume that you would, in fact, have to admit that, given the agenda of the Bishop of Paris, most modern scientific thought should have been suppressed on the grounds that it would place men's souls in jeopardy as undercutting their faith in the Bible and in the patristic explanations of the universe.

And yes, If I actually believed that research was going to damn most of mankind forever, I'd darn well fight against it.

<rhetoric>Are you telling me that if you believed that a certain area of research was going to inevitably end in utter catastrophe for mankind, you *wouldn't*? What sort of action leading to impending disaster would it take to force you to action?</rhetoric>

Posted by: Tom West on February 16, 2005 8:58 AM

And yes, If I actually believed that research was going to damn most of mankind forever, I'd darn well fight against it.

Let's get real here. Your preferences matter nothing here. What you are arguing is for letting powerful individuals (and don't kid yourself, that's what we're talking about here, not society as a whole) make these kinds of decisions, either unilaterally or in packs. Has it really not dawned on you that such decisions are almost always made in the fairly narrow self-interest of the decision maker? Are you aware of the rather slimey "inside deals" that many of the very women academics who have been most vocal about Summers' comments have managed to negotiate for themselves and their significant others? (Check out Steve Sailer's website for details.)

Whoa. Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. I think you are being more than a little naive about the possibilities of self-interest among those who display such outraged virtue here.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on February 16, 2005 7:34 PM

Mr. West:

One more point. Why use unrestricted germ warfare as your bogeyman? If you're worried about dangerous research, consider nuclear weapons work. Exactly how much impact do you think you've got on such work? Did anyone come around and consult with you about the budget of Lawrence Livermore for this year? Is it possible that such weapons serve interests other than yours? Just maybe?

You seem to have an odd faith--granted, shared by many voters--that the status quo represents the path of virtue rather than the path of power. I'm genuinely mystified by such an attitude, but I guess that makes me odd man out.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on February 16, 2005 8:21 PM

Well, if that's the case, then they'll be deciding *whether* to interfere as well as *what* to interfere with, in which case our opinions on whether to discourage certain branches of research are entirely irrelevant :-).

Has it really not dawned on you that such decisions are almost always made in the fairly narrow self-interest of the decision maker?

Perhaps, except that for most people in a high office, either public or private, the opinion of the populace as a whole is quite meaningful for them. They make the decisions, but their decisions are influenced by us.

I think you are being more than a little naive about the possibilities of self-interest among those who display such outraged virtue here.

Such individuals are entirely irrelevant to my opinion or argument. If you examine my four points as to why I dislike this area of research, harm to established individuals was exactly none of those points. Besides, were we completely powerless, their outrage would fall on deaf ears. Heard any racists gaining concessions because they'd been hard done by?

If you're worried about dangerous research, consider nuclear weapons work. Exactly how much impact do you think you've got on such work? Did anyone come around and consult with you about the budget of Lawrence Livermore for this year? Is it possible that such weapons serve interests other than yours? Just maybe?

How much impact? Well, if public opinion shifted radically away from acceptance of nuclear weaponry, there'd be a *lot* of pressure on the government to weaken such programs.

I certainly don't expect that gov't will be utterly aligned with my interests, and given I'm Canadian I'm happy if the US government aligns with my interests at all :-). But businesses *and* the gov't spend an awful lot of time and effort trying to influence us, which makes me believe that we influence them.

on a more serious note, it's a darn good thing that you're the odd man out. Once a society has generally moved to the opinion that government *cannot* (as oppose to currently does not) represent them, it's fertile ground for dictators and the worst types of rogues.

In some way, it's the belief in that virtue that allows western democracies to exist and why it's often very hard to establish democracies elsewhere. Likewise, people live up to and down to expectations. If your opinion was the majority, we'd have exactly the society that you imagine you have now, and it would look a *lot* worse.

Posted by: Tom West on February 17, 2005 6:45 PM

Nice answers, Tom, but let me ask you:

You really see no problems with the political control of research inquiry and discourse? None at all? If the Bishop of Paris has the big hammer, then let it fall on anyone whose intellectual activities he finds threatening or misguided--as long as you agree with him?

Are you quite sure that you're not feeling just a tad smug about the whole process of intellectual harassment because you agree with the harassers in this instance?

I've also noticed that your opinions, over time, seem very, very middle of the road Canadian (in a brief forumula, tres center left.) Have you ever spent much time feeling like a member of a harassed minority in your personal life? I suspect it might change your view of being in the opposition. Or have you perhaps subtly adjusted your opinions to continue to be 'in with the in crowd'? Sorry, but there's more than a tad of what I'd have to describe as 'smug majoritarianism' about your willingness to see outlier attitudes crushed by what, in this context, constitutes by-the-book-orthodoxy.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on February 18, 2005 1:28 PM

You really see no problems with the political control of research inquiry and discourse? None at all?

There is *always* going to be control of research inquiry and discourse. *Somebody* is making the decision as to which professors to hire (and thus which research to specialize in), which grants to fund, etc.

Since a decision is going to be made, why shouldn't I try and influence it (in some inconsequential fashion) so that research is done in fields that I consider more likely to benefit mankind (or at least not actively harm it)?

Obviously, I could be wrong, as was the Bishop of Paris. However, so could the current decision maker. Since, obviously I believe I'm right (otherwise I'd change my opinion), why should I defer to the current decision over my what I believe is right. If my belief is particularly strong, that really would be an abdication of responsibility.

I suspect that part of our difference in opinion also has to do with what I believe should be censured.

I classify research into:
1) Research that will result in a general good.
2) Research I can't see the use for.
3) Research I believe is going to hurt society.
4) Research I believe is actively dangerous.

I believe that society should fund research in classes 1 and 2 (and we can argue about what fits in those categories). I don't think it should fund 3, but if people want to pay for it out of their own pocket, that's their business (and face the possible social consequences). I think 4 should be illegal (Researching how to build a better car bomb is just "not on" :-)).

There's a *lot* of funding that goes, in my opinion, into area 2. (And there are a lot of screeds against these branches on the net.) In other words, I don't believe in trying to stop funding areas that I think will contribute nothing. I really to have to perceive active harm to society (and this really only involves a very few fields) - and researching into sexual/racial mental differences is one of them. I've yet to see *anything* positive come out of such researches, and even more bizarrely, the people conducting them usually don't even pretend to come up with how they could be useful.

The same four categories apply to discourse. I'm happy to admonish people with what I consider harmful views, and in fact consider it a responsibility. Most opinions I disagree with fall into area 2. It has to be pretty unvarnished noxiousness before it falls into area 3.

Once again, I believe that this is done all the time. So, if people are already going to face consequences for their discourse, I'd like to try influencing those consequences to my direction.

The rest of your comments replied to in the next post...

Posted by: Tom West on February 19, 2005 9:50 AM

Are you quite sure that you're not feeling just a tad smug about the whole process of intellectual harassment because you agree with the harassers in this instance?

Very good point. I'm trying to come up with someone or an area of research being pilloried (as opposed to just unfunded or disagreed with) that I agree with, and am coming up blank.

The closest I can think of is professors talking about 9/11. The trouble is that I consider them idiots, although not harmful. (i.e. class 2, not 3.) I still find myself feeling that society has a right to judge them, even if I disagree with general feeling of 'Asking "Why do they hate us" is equivalent to saying they were justified in killing 3,000 people.'

I suppose the teaching (or lack thereof) of evolutionary theory in schools (which is not research) is about as close to outrage as I come. And for that, I cannot quite find myself saying that the majority of people who have children being taught don't have the right to specify what is taught. So, I limit my outrage to expressing my belief in the costs to their children, etc.

But you are right, in countries where I believe the majority are prepared to be *actively detrimental* to a minority not seeking them harm, I think I'd be prepared to take away the majority's right to dictate how their money is spent, what areas of discourse they should be allowed to veto, etc.

As I said, a very interesting point.

[As for the slippery slope argument (i.e. if we ban some things...), I've noticed that this is a cultural difference between Canadians and Americans. The Americans are much more likely to look at how a law could be abused before considering its passage. Canadians are much more likely to see how a law will likely be used. I'm not certain why this is, but it's certainly there. It's why most Canadians aren't particularly worried about our hate speech legislation. I think we trust our government more. (Probably related to the fact that Canada elects lawyers and pretty much nothing else).

I've also noticed that your opinions, over time, seem very, very middle of the road Canadian (in a brief formula, tres center left.)

You mean tres centre. *Your* on the right. :-)

Have you ever spent much time feeling like a member of a harassed minority in your personal life?\

Truthfully, no. I've lived what the Democrats are living in the USA (Ontario had 8 years of right-wing (okay, centrist or slightly left by US standards) rule (we elected a golfer, not a lawyer :-() before the Liberals wiped them out), but harassed minority - no.

I suspect it might change your view of being in the opposition.

Possibly. Again, I think I'd need to see stuff that I consider actively good be actively censured before I'd say that the decision should be taken away from the people and given to someone else (again, science doesn't come out of nowhere. Someone actively has to choose what areas to research/publish, so *someone* is making decisions)

Or have you perhaps subtly adjusted your opinions to continue to be 'in with the in crowd'?

Actually, as I've become a bigger believer in evo-bio over the years (in some ways thanks to your postings), and little more capitalist, I've probably moved a little away from my crowd.

Sorry, but there's more than a tad of what I'd have to describe as 'smug majoritarianism' about your willingness to see outlier attitudes crushed by what, in this context, constitutes by-the-book-orthodoxy.

Well, there's two parts to this - I don't bother to post on what I consider the essential waste of research that takes place on a lot of what would be considered "left-wing" research. It's an outlier as well, but I don't see a real cost to society, just a waste of resources.

It's only in those fields that I consider actively harmful that I'll make my opinion known - and in those areas, it usually correlates with the left-wing.

Secondly, I don't tend to post about things were others have enunciated my opinion clearly. I don't spend a lot of time saying "me to". So this tends to mean that I post in areas where my opinion is seriously out of whack with the general posters here. Since the posters here are usually anti-majoritarianism, that means I post mostly on "majoritarian" issues.

As for smug... sort of. I'm usually on the losing side of most political issues around here, but truthfully in Canada, we're usually arguing a few decimal points around centre, so I haven't ever really had any trouble accepting majority rule even when it wasn't my side that won.

However, I'm Canadian, so I see it working moderately well, so I'm not inclined to change the way things work just because they *could* be abused to horrendous results.

Posted by: Tom West on February 19, 2005 10:41 AM

Mr. West:

Thanks for you calm and reasoned response. Sorry if I got a little hysterical there above. Kudos to you for keeping your cool, unlike yours truly.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on February 22, 2005 5:24 PM