Why do evo-psycho bros lie so much about their controversies? Do they realize they are lying and are doing it as a political expediency? Or is their view of the world so warped by their faith in evolutionary psychology that they don't even realize they are doing it?
Here are evo-psycho bro bros Bo and Ben Winegard also misrepresenting the Summers controversy. I fiddled with the formatting for added clarity:
In 2005, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard university, gave a talk to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in which he addressed the differential representation of men and women (there are more men) in tenured positions in science and engineering at prestigious universities and research institutions.
He forwarded three hypotheses to explain the differential representation:
(1) the high-powered job hypothesis;
(2) the differential aptitude at the extreme end of the intelligence distribution hypothesis; and
(3) the socialization and discrimination hypothesis.
According to hypothesis 1, men are more willing than women to work the long, grueling hours required to be successful in a math or engineering department at a top-tier university. According to hypothesis 2, there are more men than women at the extreme ends of the intelligence distribution (both on the low end and the high end); therefore, there are more men than women of exceptional intellectual ability. And, according to hypothesis 3, women are socialized to pursue “feminine” hobbies and jobs and are discriminated against in certain academic disciplines such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
They then jump right into the response to Summers' statement and of course have the nerve to complain that Summers' critics mischaracterized him.
Fortunately the speech is online and so we can see exactly how the Winegards misrepresented what Summers said.
So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.
So no, contrary to how the Winegards present it, Summers doesn't merely advance three equal hypotheses. He weighted one of them:
...there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.
Larry Summers top reasons for why women have less successful STEM careers than men:
- Intrinsic aptitude
LESSER FACTORSA word about "variability" - nobody cares about it.
Now Summers said these things while he was in a political role, president of Harvard and he said it at a Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce.
It was a stupid thing to do from a political perspective and it was a slap in the face to women in the room interested in STEM careers.
And that is why there was such a big response.
But of course evo-psycho bros know, thanks to their theories, women evolved to be irrational, emotion-driven creatures so it's no surprise if they portray women's response to a political slap in the face as hysterical and stupid.
I haven't addressed the mind-boggling idiocy of the evo-psycho views on gender much, because that would take a whole other many-months worth of discussion and I have enough to deal with on the subject of race. But this bullshit gives you some idea of where they are coming from.
They also cry big fat tears over poor Larry Summers' career:
Similar to Murray, Summers’ reputation was thoroughly besmirched by the nasty attacks he faced, and he is still haunted by accusations of sexism.
You can learn all about Summers' subsequent career on Wikipedia, including his stint in the Obama administration. We should all be so "haunted."
The paper in which they lie about Summers' speech is entitled: A social science without sacred values.
What "sacred value" would they like to remove from social science - honesty?