Scientists have been fascinated with the question: nurture or nature? As employers making decisions about who to hire and for what skills, Larry Summers got our attention recently speaking at an academic conference about women in the workforce. Summers opened up a can of worms with his suggestion that math skills were sex based. But it's a familiar can of worms and one that everyone can have a say in.
Various commentators use these occasions to chime in with their opinions which most likely are no more predetermined sexist biases. The media busily tries to disentangle truth from fiction, but authors simplify the issues and editorials are other no more than a writer's opportunity to hold forth with personal opinions.
Scientific research in this area can look just as suspect. We recently came across work from Allison Bailey and Peter Hurd at the University of Alberta who published in Biological Psychology. They say that the ratio of finger length in men varies according to how much testosterone they are exposed to in utero. Men with smaller index fingers relative to their ring fingers, according to their research, display a statistically relevant tendency towards aggressive behavior. Their theory doesn't apply to women. The authors point out that their finding should not be grounds for any normative action. But does that sort of cautionary endnote really to convince people? Or will the media go on and on suggesting that violent tenancies can can be attributed and predicted by finger lengths?
Good parts of society have been convinced that genetics is responsible for complex behavior patterns, and this is a dangerous assumption because it can be used for nefarious purposes like reinforcing biases. Self-labeled "organizationally challenged" Lisa Belkin jokes on 2/27/05 in the NYT; "Chaos and The Cubicle", that desk tidiness is hardwired. She doesn't mention that genetic studies have connected neatness with the presence of certain certain genes. She then quotes a production specialty consultant who said: My H.R. clients have flat-out told me: 'I'd promote someone with a tidy office over someone with a messy office any day.'"
If behavior traits were genetically determined traits, should they used to promoted or demote people? To steer people towards different career paths? Should people be disallowed from certain jobs for carrying them? Could those who show traits for alcoholism be dissuaded from restaurant jobs and public transport driving jobs? Should those with compromised longevity traits be placed in jobs bound for obsolescence...computer programming perhaps?
Larry Summers tried to evade being labeled sexist, defending his suggestion that women were intellectually not as cable as men as only a "hypothesis". Doubtful. More likely he's so convinced he feels confident sharing this at a meeting of academics focused on diversity in the workplace. Perhaps he feels the political climate is ripe for such notions.
