Sunday, April 20, 2014

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Women and Science and Political Correctness

I like Neil deGrasse Tyson. No, I really do. I enjoy his TV stuff, and I think highly of his book on Pluto. What he knows, he knows, and he's good at imparting it — Better than Sagan ever was, in my opinion. But like a lot of smart people, he outsmarts himself, and thinks he knows more than he does — I call that the "Curse of Omniscience," and a lot of people suffer from it. Especially celebrities surrounded by sycophants, and most especially Black celebrities surrounded by sycophants. So, having studied, astronomy and astrophysics, he's consequently an expert in sociology and anthropology and civil rights. This from Iacknowledge:

He points out that he’s never been a woman, but he does know what its like to pursue a career in a field that defied the expectations of society. He tells the audience that when he would tell teachers he wanted to be a scientists, they would ask him why he didn’t want to be an athlete. Tyson pointed out that a black kid choosing a field in science was “hands down the path of most resistance” and that it was only through a constant struggle that he got to where he wanted to go. He then wonders aloud about the many other kids who didn’t make it, because of the societal forces that put up barriers for them at every turn.

That, he concludes, is where we should be looking for the answers to the “male-female” and the “white-minority” gaps that pervade scientific fields. Start there.

“Before we start talking about genetic differences, you got to come up with a system that is equal opportunity. Then we can have that conversation.”

The exchange happens at the very end of the talk, but if you are a science nerd like me consider watching the whole discussion. Not only is Tyson great, but he is next to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and co-writer of the original Cosmos series, Ann Druyan. It simply doesn’t get any better than that.
Well, there you go. Like everything else that liberals don't like, this weird disparity is Whitey's fault. Specifically male Whitey's fault. That's what "Societal forces that put up barriers" means. He's making the idiotic liberal assumption that all races and both sexes are precisely equal in every way, and that if outcomes vary, some kind of active discrimination is at fault.

Now, a Martian might read the above and think it makes sense. That's because the Martian hasn't witnessed what's been going on for decades — In academia and business, everybody's falling all over themselves discriminating in favor of women and non-Whites. Any girl who shows interest in science gets maniacal encouragement from everybody, and scholarships and academic and business positions are dumped in her lap. Colleges fight like crazy to get anybody but White males into science programs, any programs. Anybody actually in the academic and business arenas can testify to this. So of course we're never going to start talking about genetic differences, because we can continue to whine about discrimination and miniaggressions and disparate impacts and dirty looks and other unfalsifiable assertions till the heat-death of the Universe.

No, here's why there aren't more women in science:

1. Lack of interest. Science is a geeky thing. How many actually geeky women do you know? How many women are interested in abstractions like math and science and engineering? There are geeky girls in fiction, of course, because a geeky girl is a cute thing to behold. But do remember that it's fiction.  Yes, most men aren't geeks, and aren't interested in such things either. But per capita, a lot more men fit that description. And, the women who are that way almost always find themselves in biology, usually medicine, the least abstract, most people-oriented subdivision of science. That's because women are much more into people/relationship things, on the average, than men are. They think in terms of taking care of people, and therefore are attracted to medicine. Men like bulldozers and rocket ships and Fermat's theorem. Women's eyes generally glaze over at things like that.

2. Intellect. On the average, men and woman are pretty much equally intelligent. That's on the average. But the bell curve is differents. For a number of reasons, the male bell curve is flatter, that is, there are fewer average men and more idiots and geniuses. In the case of women, there are many more of average intelligence, and considerably fewer idiots and geniuses.  Consequently, out of a thousand men and a thousand women, picked at random, you're going to have a lot more men intelligent enough for a meaningful career in the sciences or mathematics.

3. Commitment. This is related to #1. There are oodles of males out there who are happy devoting almost all their time to their careers, and that's what it takes to excel in science. They have families, but their wives handle all that stuff, because they're busy keeping up. If they don't, they don't compete very well.  Comparatively few women behave that way, no matter their interest and intelligence. Again, they're people-oriented and family-oriented, and that is a genuine disadvantage in science.

But not according to Tyson. These obvious facts are taboo, of course, so he doesn't mention them, though I'm sure he's well aware of them. Remember the "Girls Just Want to Have Sums" episode of The Simpsons? Well, Tyson does pretty much what Skinner tries to do, except he does it glibly, voluntarily, and enthusiastically, as in this exchange from that episode in the Simpsons Wiki:

  • Chalmers: "Skinner, you've got to deal with these kooks."
    Skinner: "Don't worry, I have a plan: pretend I agree with them."
    Chalmers: "Well, you'd better hurry." (pointing to his car) "Look what they've done to your car."
    Skinner: "No, that's how its always looks."
    Chalmers: "Oh, how sad."
  • Skinner: "Today, we celebrate the first of many, many, many, many diversity forums. Why is it that women 'appear' to be worse at math than men? What is the source of this 'illusion' or as I call it, the biggest lie ever told."
Lindsey Naegle: "You're a worse version of Hitler!"
Skinner: "Please believe me. I-I understand the problem of women." (he moves from behind the podium revealing he's wearing a purple dress and purple heels) "See." (the audience gasps)
Nelson: "Haw, haw!" (sing-songy) "The principal's a tranny."
  • Skinner: "Am I wearing women's clothes? I didn't notice. When I look in my closet, I don't see male clothes or female clothes. They're all the same."
Edna Krabappel: "Are you saying that men and women are identical?"
Skinner: "Oh, no, of course not! Women are unique in every way."
Lindsey Naegle: "Now he's saying men and women aren't equal!"
Skinner: "No, no, no! It's the differences of which there are none that makes the sameness exceptional. Just tell me what to say!" (he starts to breathe heavily then pass out)
Rika Shiguma (志熊 理科) again, from Haganai (はがない). She is a scientist, so she knows.


  1. Thought you might be interested in this article...

  2. You know I read your whole post, I watched Neil again and yeah, you didn't win listening award. Neil said that before we talk about differences, we need equality. Which you quoted above.

    He didn't say that there weren't differences. There are.

    1. no, he avoided it entirely ...thats the point.

      and what he quoted was "before we talk about GENETIC differences..." that too is pure unadulterated politically correct dogma

      its social ideology that says "race isnt real"... not science. and that more than anything is what he looked to EVADE.