Monday, September 22, 2014

Why Sam Harris' Comments Can't be Sexist


Award winning author, Sam Harris, has been on the receiving end of several accusations of having made some sexist off-the-cuff comments when responding to an unanticipated question from an interviewer during a speaking engagement.

Today, I will address two questions: what is sexism, and is Dr. Harris guilty? Then, I will look at a couple of objections to what appears to me to be the only reasonable verdict: innocent.

What is sexism?

Merriam-Webster defines ‘sexism’ as: “unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women”. They further add that “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex” qualify. Since it is remarks that are under question, I'll use the latter definition.

‘Unfair’ is further defined as: “marked by injustice, partiality, or deception”. 
A ‘stereotype’ is defined as: “an often unfair and untrue belief that many people have about all people or things with a particular characteristic.”

We can synthesize these definitions and ask if Dr. Harris’ remarks amount to fostering untrue or deceptive beliefs that many people have about women.

Notice that this question reduces to an empirical one for which there is, at least in principle, an answer. Were Dr. Harris’ comments about men and women untrue or deceptive? To answer this, we will examine what he said about psychological differences between the genders. Then, we will examine whether the evidence appears to indicate that what he said is untrue or deceptive.

But first, let’s clarify what Dr. Harris did not say. One would think that I wouldn’t have to repeat that which he clearly expressed here, but so many of the accusations against him are based on these distortions:

He did not say that a psychological difference between the genders does explain why “angry atheism” attracts more men. He hypothesized that such a gender difference might contribute to that explanation.

He did not say that whatever psychological differences might be at play, they must be innate or biological. He acknowledged that they may be contributed to by either biology or socio-cultural influences.


He did not say that women aren’t capable of thinking as critically as men or that they are more gullible than men.

He did not say that this matter is undeserving of even five minutes of his time.

Were Harris’ comments sexist?

Dr. Harris thinks that women are, in general, less attracted to the aggressive and charged confrontations that characterize active atheism than men are. Based on the definition of sexism above, it follows that one could only find Dr. Harris’ comments sexist if one could not reasonably conclude that the available evidence indicates that females may be less psychologically inclined towards aggression.

In 2005, psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, analysed 46 meta-analyses spanning over two decades of investigation into a variety of psychological gender differences including cognitive variables, verbal and non-verbal communication, social or personality variables, measures of psychological well-being, and others (1). In almost all cases, the research indicated that males and females are much more alike than they are different. In contrast to the “gender differences hypothesis” she was initially investigating, she ended up coining the “gender similiarities hypothesis”. Men and women, it seems, are not from Mars and Venus, after all. This was her conclusion:
“The gender similarities hypothesis stands in stark contrast to the differences model, which holds that men and women, and boys and girls, are vastly different psychologically. The gender similarities hypothesis states, instead, that males and females are alike on most—but not all—psychological variables. Extensive evidence from meta-analyses of research on gender differences supports the gender similarities hypothesis. A few notable exceptions are some motor behaviors (e.g., throwing distance) and some aspects of sexuality, which show large gender differences. Aggression shows a gender difference that is moderate in magnitude.

It is time to consider the costs of overinflated claims of gender differences. Arguably, they cause harm in numerous realms, including women’s opportunities in the workplace, couple conflict and communication, and analyses of self- esteem problems among adolescents. Most important, these claims are not consistent with the scientific data.”
The last paragraph underscores the sobering consequences of sexism. But while Dr. Hyde found that these concerns are valid for most gender differences (similarities, actually), they aren't necessarily valid for aggression, where a real difference between males and females was identified.

I’m not a psychologist or an expert in this field, but after reading that relatively recent and thorough review and doing some web-based searches that failed to find any data that would clearly overturn Dr. Hyde’s conclusion, it seems to me that one could tentatively stop here.

Of course, I’m completely open to other relevant and more recent data, and if anybody reading this knows of any, please chime in.

I’ll be the first to admit that the available data doesn’t conclusively prove that a large enough gender difference in aggression does explain the apparent male predominance in the “angry atheist movement”. Nobody knows what does. But for Dr. Harris to be found innocent, it must only be the case that one could reasonably hypothesize that such a difference might play a relevant role.


A couple of possible objections

Perhaps, based on the same evidence, you disagree with Dr. Hyde’s conclusion. That doesn’t make Dr. Harris’ comments sexist. Reasonable people can and often do disagree on the interpretation of imperfect evidence. Dr. Harris’ comments could only be sexist if it were unreasonable for Dr. Hyde herself to have reached her (sexist, in that case) conclusion about aggression. (Again, new overturning evidence, to which I am completely open, would also be relevant here.)

One of the most thoughtful objections to Dr. Harris’ remarks that I’ve discovered come from a blogger named Libby Anne. I encourage people to read her post in it's entirety. Here’s a part of what she wrote:

"Would Harris suggest that black and Hispanic men, too, have a “nurturing, coherence-building, extra estrogen vibe” that makes the angry tone of Harris’s atheist activism off-putting? Presumably not. Presumably Harris understands that there are a variety of reasons for the underrepresentation of people of color, including both casual racism in the organized atheist community and cultural specifics in the wider society, none of which have anything to do with any sort of underlying psychological differences. And yet, when it comes to the underrepresentation of women in organized atheism Harris chooses not to consider either casual sexism in the organized atheist community or the cultural landscape women live their lives against. Instead, he jumps straight to presumed psychological differences between men and women."
It turns out that Ms. Anne and I are both conveniently employing the same Merriam-Webster definition of sexism. Remember that for Dr. Harris’ comments to be sexist, they must reduce to an unreasonable distortion of the evidence. Perhaps it is important, then, that Ms. Anne thought that that question would require "plenty of long conversations" and preferred “not to get into these questions right now.” Is it possible that Dr. Harris' position isn't as obviously untrue, unfair, and deceptive, as to warrant the charge of sexism?

Regarding Ms. Anne's analogy, I had a look, and as far as I could see, there isn’t any reasonable psychological evidence supporting the claim that Blacks and Hispanics are less aggressive (or psychologically different in any other relevant way) than their Caucasian counterparts. That's precisely why that suggestion would represent bigotry, and why it's not a relevant analogy. As for Dr. Harris jumping to psychological gender differences, he did, in his blog, acknowledge that sexism, misogyny, and social pressures (all themselves, potentially influenced by recognized psychological gender differences in aggression and sexuality, I would add) are relevant considerations.

Conclusion

It seems that the question of whether Dr. Harris’ comments are sexist boils down to an empirical one. Is it possible to reasonably conclude, on the basis of the available evidence, that men may be fonder of the aggressive and charged confrontations that characterize the visible North American atheism movement because men are psychologically more inclined towards aggression than women are, when considered in the aggregate? I think that the answer is yes, and so I think that it’s just not possible for the charge of sexism that’s been made about Dr. Harris to stick.

Because the question of Dr. Harris' innocence is an empirical one, I would hope that people on both sides of this debate would restrict the conversation to one about the relevant evidence. As a core message of the atheism movement, it's ironic that that would require a reminder. No matter what we think of Dr. Harris' comments, wouldn't we all benefit from that kind of conversation, rather than the one we are seeing right now?


1. The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American Psychologist 2005;60:581-92.

36 comments:

  1. "Why Sam Harris' Comments probably ar not Sexist" would have been a better title. Deep down he still could be a sexist pig, but probably is not...

    ReplyDelete
  2. As always, thanks for your interest, Rik. You are my #1 commenter of all time!

    I thought about a title like that, but the title I chose emphasizes a point that I’ve tried to make and that I think is important.

    To claim that Harris’ remarks were sexist, one must show that he couldn’t reasonably have arrived at the conclusion that a relevant gender difference exists, yet offered it *anyways*. That’s what would make his remarks unfair, untrue, and deceptive. But it appears that one *could* reasonably conclude that such a difference does exist, and that’s why I think that the stronger statement, that his comments *cannot* be sexist, is warranted.

    I want to say 2 things about the idea that Sam may be a sexist “deep down”. Firstly, I agree with PZ Meyers in that I also suspect that many, if not most, of us probably do harbor some sexist attitudes and ideas “deep down”, just as we probably also harbor racist and other bigoted attitudes and ideas. We are imperfect beings doing the best we can with the imperfect cognitive tools and heuristics provided to us by the trial-and-error of evolution. We should *expect* to have these sorts of ideas deep within. It’s what we do with them that counts.

    Say that a man lived his entire life with constant ideas of pedophilia but never once acted upon them? Was he a pedophile, "deep down"? Only if you think that one can be guilty of thought crimes. We are what we say and do, not what we think, so I am in no position to judge anything about Harris “deep down” and I don’t care. I only care about how he behaves. So far, in his life, he has expressed great concern for the welfare of oppressed and threatened women and girls around the globe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I strongly agree with this blog post as well as your comment, Yorgo. Thanks for taking the time to write it up and find the relevant information. Great response to PZ Meyers' (irrelevant) point about us all being sexist deep down. All the best!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the kind words, Scott. Feel free to share my blog with your friends if you are so inclined. Best!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nope, nope, nope. Let's start from the top.

    "Merriam-Webster defines ‘sexism’ as: “unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women”. They further add that “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex” qualify. Since it is remarks that are under question, I'll use the latter definition."

    Dictionaries always lag contemporary usage, and the term "sexist" isn't nearly so simple to define any more. Part of the problem is that so many people think along the following lines:

    "P1. Sexist people do X.
    P2. I don't do X.
    C1. Therefore, I'm not sexist."

    They then define X according to their convenience, and deploy all the usual rationalizations.

    "I'm not sexist, I didn't say I hated women! I only said they should be barefoot and in the kitchen."
    "I'm not sexist, I didn't say they should be barefoot in the kitchen! I only wondered why they're so emotional all the time."
    "I'm not sexist, I didn't say women are emotional all the time! I was only asking how a woman did her hair."

    Harris engages in this even before his article starts; "I'm Not The Sexist Pig You're Looking For" implies there's a certain X that sexists do, and since Harris didn't do X he can't be sexist. It also engages in a little poisoning of the ol' well (we're looking for sexist pigs? I'm certainly not, but the bastards keep getting in my face anyway), and also suggests he's never seen "Star Wars".

    If X is "unfair treatment of people because of their sex," however, then he is guilty of being sexist:

    "I’m not saying that my fondness for certain women proves that I’m not sexist. I’m saying that I actually respect women more than men by default. Again, I’m not saying that this is necessarily good; I’m saying that it is a fact."

    Not only does he treat men differently from how he treats women, and not only does he fail to give a good reason, he openly acknowledges both, in an article where he hopes to argue he isn't sexist.

    This is only the most blatant example. I like Greta Christina's take, which lays out the case for sexism in an exceptionally clear manner, backed up by plenty of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for your interest in this question and my blog. As I indicated before, you’ve been one of the few people who’s been making evidence based comments on the matter, and I appreciate that. Unfortunately, your more recent comments have been straying from the evidence addressing psychological gender differences, and I’m afraid that they are suffering for it.

    For instance, in your post above, you seem to indicate an inclination to accept the first M-W definition of ’sexism’ that I provided: “unfair treatment of women”.

    M-W further defines ‘unfair’ as “marked by injustice, partiality, or deception”.

    But then you define ‘sexism’ as treating women differently than men. I believe that “injustice, partiality, or deception” are integral to the definition of sexism because sexism is supposed to be something *bad* that we should *avoid*. Different isn’t necessarily *bad*.

    So is this really what you are saying? Are you really saying that merely treating the genders differently is sexism? Let me warn you that if that is the case, I’ll gladly accept your charge of sexism, and I suspect that Sam would too, and I am prepared to show you how preposterous a definition of sexism that actually is. Will you stand by that definition: yes, or no?

    Regarding Greta Christina’s blog piece, over at FB, I explained why it’s a straw man, but if you think that I’m wrong and that she manages to “lay out the case for sexism in an exceptionally clear manner” and it’s not a straw man, well, then why don’t you summarize her argument here, and I’ll be happy to respond to what you think she’s saying so brilliantly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Unfortunately, your more recent comments have been straying from the evidence addressing psychological gender differences, and I’m afraid that they are suffering for it."

    Been there, done that, gave a lecture on it. As your blog claims to be more philosophical, I figured I'd give that a rest and try a different approach.

    "For instance, in your post above, you seem to indicate an inclination to accept the first M-W definition of ’sexism’ that I provided: “unfair treatment of women”."

    Nope, you're confusing two separate arguments here, that A) your definition is inadequate, and B) even if we accept that definition, Sam Harris still said something sexist. Given your silence on B, I'll assume you've conceded that one. While I could grab my trophy and do a victory lap, there's a greater point about A) to be made.

    "Unfair," “injustice,” “partiality,” or “deception” are weak weaselly words that offer a lot of room for interpretation. It was only a few decades ago that a marriage license implied automatic consent to sex anywhere between Mexico and Canada. But was marital rape any more just before it was made illegal? By shifting around what you mean by "just," say between legal and moral contexts, you can reach contradictory answers to the same question. That's the calling card of a bad definition.

    Consider the cosmonaut case I linked above. This is clearly sexism, but is it “deceptive” or “unfair” or “unjust” to ask someone how they maintain their hair? The reporter was not explicitly saying "you are a lesser person," they were just asking questions at an event where they were invited to do so. No deception, no unfairness. So how can we call it sexist?

    The reason's behind the scenes, in the implications. Inside that reporter's head are the assumptions "all women put a high value on being beautiful" and "cosmonauts are very busy." The latter is quite true, but the former in certainly false. Both were treated as true, however, and merged to make the reporter think "hey, how does this cosmonaut manage to do all that cosmonauting while also sinking all that time into maintaining her beauty? Other women would really value that information!"

    That's what made it a sexist act: it was an action contingent on at least one false or unwarranted assumption related to sex or gender, where "action" includes both speech and inaction when action was possible and sufficient. This definition will never show up in a dictionary (too philosophical and wordy), but hopefully you can see how it's in the same ballpark while offering a much sharper definition.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I suppose you'd like me to give it a spin. Fair enough, let's examine another of Harris' comments.

    "For instance, only 5 percent of Fortune 500 companies are run by women. How much of this is the result of sexism? How much is due to the disproportionate (and heroic) sacrifices women make in their 20’s or 30’s to have families? How much is explained by normally distributed psychological differences between the sexes? I have no idea, but I am confident that each of these factors plays a role. "

    What whoa whoa. Sam Harris has no idea what proportion of each explanation contributes, but he's “confident” that each plays a role?! How can he be confident without knowledge? That's an action (he said something) based on a false or unwarrented assumption (unwarrented here) related to sex or gender (he was talking about women).

    Bingo, another sexist statement. In a written defense against being sexist. That's two own-goals now!

    "Regarding Greta Christina’s blog piece, over at FB, I explained why it’s a straw man,"

    No you didn't, all you said was this:

    "Greta's blog entry on this is a straw man based on the common distortion that Sam claimed that a purely *innate* psychological gender difference is at play."

    Which is an assertion without explanation. The title of her piece is “Why Both of Sam Harris’s Recent Comments Were Sexist — Even If You Accept Some Degree of Innate Gendered Behavior,” no less, so you yourself are misrepresenting Christina's position.

    Try again, this time by directly referencing Christina's piece instead of giving it a blanket dismissal.

    ReplyDelete
  10. HJ,

    Once again, thanks for your interest and for engaging me on this topic. I really enjoy and appreciate your thoughts. I have, for instance, been learning a great deal about “benevolent sexism” as a result of them.

    Let me also thank you for doing such a great job of making my own case.

    While your previous definition of sexism was “treating the genders differently” (a horrible definition to which you weren’t prepared to own up) now, your new definition seems to be “an action (or inaction) contingent on at least one *false* or *unwarranted* assumption related to gender”. Can’t you see that making false and unwarranted assumptions is unfair, unjust, untrue, and deceptive – the very words from M-W regarding the definition of sexism that I provided? This is precisely what I’ve been arguing all along.

    So let’s use your latest wording of a definition of sexism. Which of Harris’ comments are based on at least one false or unwarranted assumption related to gender? What are those false and unwarranted assumptions and how do you know what they are?

    His original comments that sparked off this controversy are supported by evidence reasonably leading to the conclusion that women are less inclined towards aggression than men are. If you want to claim that those comments were sexist, you have to show that no reasonable person could arrive at that conclusion after looking at the evidence. I will once again note that your burden is extremely high here. Merely indicating why you might disagree with that conclusion does not suffice. Reasonable people can disagree about what conclusions can be drawn based upon available evidence. To call Harris sexist, you must show that his conclusion is one that no reasonable person (including Dr. Hyde, the female author of the most substantive review on the topic) could arrive at, in which case, that conclusion would be unwarranted or false (meeting your own definition of sexism). You have not done that and until you do, I suggest that you *retract the charge of sexism and apologize to Dr. Harris*.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In your comments here at my blog, you’ve been bringing up other comments that Dr. Harris made including (1) that he treats women with more respect than he treats men and that (2) he is confident that normally distributed psychological differences between the genders plays a role among other factors that explain why only 5% of Fortune 500 companies are run by women.

    Exactly what false or unwarranted assumptions about the genders do you think Dr. Harris is relying upon to support both of those and why? Regarding (1), it’s not enough that he treats the genders differently without providing a reason, as you mentioned on October 1. That doesn’t meet *your* definition of sexism. You have to show that you know that the reason that he is treating the genders differently is based on false or unwarranted assumptions. What are they and how do you know what they are? So, again, I’m asking you to fit your accusations that those comments are sexist to your own definition of sexism. You’ve got to be able to at least do that, or again, I’d ask you to retract the accusation and apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I will once again ask you to clearly and succinctly lay out Greta Christina’s argument. Notice how I laid out mine: I defined ‘sexism’. That definition requires unfairness, injustice, and deception. Then I showed that Harris’ comments are supported by evidence, indicating that they are not unfair, unjust, or untrue. That’s very clear. So please do the same for Greta Christina’s argument. I don’t think that you can, because I don’t think that she makes a cogent argument. You think that she does, so go through the exercise that I did when I laid out my argument and do the same for hers. I’m all ears.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Can’t you see that making false and unwarranted assumptions is unfair, unjust, untrue, and deceptive – the very words from M-W regarding the definition of sexism that I provided?

    You've completely missed my point. “unjust” and the like are weaselly, so of course you can adjust them to mean “false or unwarranted assumptions.” You can also adjust them to mean other things, like “illegal,” which allows you to turn sexist acts into non-sexist ones. The converse is not true, hence why the dictionary definition of “sexism” is inadequate.

    Which of Harris’ comments are based on at least one false or unwarranted assumption related to gender? What are those false and unwarranted assumptions and how do you know what they are?

    I've already given you two. Didn't you read my comments? Admittedly, I didn't explicitly lay out why “I actually respect women more than men by default” was false or unwarranted, but that's because I didn't think I needed to. Isn't it obvious that the false assumption is “women deserve more respect than men?” Look, here's a third sexist comment he made:

    I believe that a less “angry,” more “nurturing” style of discourse might attract more women to the cause of atheism.

    What is his evidence for this position? Is it true that women are more nurturing, let alone that this approach would attract more women? Harris is just asserting this by fiat, and we have good reason to suspect he has no evidence to back it up:

    However, I haven’t spent even five minutes thinking about how or whether to modify my writing or speaking style so as to accomplish this.

    If he hasn't spent five minutes trying to make himself more appealing to a wider demographic, it's very unlikely he's spent more time investigating the nature of this “appeal.” Yet again, we find a sexist comment by Harris, buried in an article where he's defending himself against charges of sexism.

    ReplyDelete
  15. His original comments that sparked off this controversy are supported by evidence reasonably leading to the conclusion that women are less inclined towards aggression than men are.

    No, they aren't. For one thing, you're equivocating “aggression” and (for instance) “verbal aggression;” if you read Hyde's paper, she's conceding that some types of aggression show a difference between genders, the conclusion just used ambiguous phrasing which erased that.

    Across several meta-analyses, aggression has repeatedly shown gender differences that are moderate in magnitude (Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984, 1986). The gender difference in physical aggression is particularly reliable and is larger than the gender difference in verbal aggression. Much publicity has been given to gender differences in relational aggression, with girls scoring higher (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). According to the Archer (2004) meta-analysis, indirect or relational aggression showed an effect size for gender differences of 0.45 when measured by direct observation, but it was only 0.19 for peer ratings, 0.02 for self-reports, and 0.13 for teacher reports. Therefore, the evidence is ambiguous regarding the magnitude of the gender difference in relational aggression.

    As luck would have it, verbal aggression doesn't have much of a gender divide.

    You're also equivocating between “aggression”, “not nurturing,” and communication style. Harris was primarily talking about the latter two, not the former, so it makes more sense to look at the evidence for nurturing and communication. And, guess what's buried in the paper you link to?

    The small magnitude of these effects is even more striking given that most of the meta-analyses addressed the classic gender differences questions—that is, areas in which gender differences were reputed to be reliable, such as mathematics performance, verbal ability, and aggressive behavior. For example, despite Tannen’s (1991) assertions, gender differences in most aspects of communication are small. Gilligan (1982) has argued that males and females speak in a different moral “voice,” yet meta-analyses show that gender differences in moral reasoning and moral orientation are small (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000).

    So your defense of Harris doesn't apply to the actual comments he made.

    I will once again ask you to clearly and succinctly lay out Greta Christina’s argument.

    Why, exactly, do you want me to defend someone else's argument? One that they've laid out clearly, elsewhere? When you have my own arguments right in front of you, which you've been pointedly avoiding or misrepresenting?

    ReplyDelete
  16. HJ,

    I’m not sure what’s more bizarre: that (1) you would criticize my use of the adjective “unjust” by using the word “weaselly”, or that (2) you prefer to use the adjective “unwarranted” instead of “unjust”. Well, HJ, one man’s epistemic warrant is another’s belly laugh. It just doesn’t matter one iota that most words can mean different things to different people in different contexts. That always applies, so it’s no specific criticism of the words M-W uses to define ‘sexism’. What matters is that during the course of our conversation, we understand what we mean, and despite all of your wordy protests, you have actually meant precisely the same thing by ‘sexism’ that I have. So I emphatically did not “completely miss your point” about the definition of ‘sexism’. You have no point. At best, it’s tangential. At worst, it’s completely irrelevant to our conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You wrote: “Admittedly, I didn't explicitly lay out why “I actually respect women more than men by default” was false or unwarranted, but that's because I didn't think I needed to. Isn't it obvious that the false assumption is “women deserve more respect than men?”

    No. It’s not at all obvious that that’s a false assumption.

    Perhaps the reason that Dr. Harris so admires women is because of the degree of equality that they have managed to accomplish in a historically male dominated world. Perhaps the psychological differences in sexuality and aggression that Dr. Hyde identified in her study cause Harris to respect men *less*. Perhaps Harris thinks that the world would be a better place if in certain ways, men were more like women. Perhaps Harris sees the gender differences that Dr. Hyde points out in her study as a sign that males are less well suited for the more peaceful and complicated world we now live in. I could go on. If even just one of these reasons is not based on any false or unwarranted assumptions (and all of them aren't), then it is YOU who is making accusations based on unwarranted assumptions because you are in no position to know that that isn’t Harris’ reasoning. Once again, you should retract your charge of sexism and apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Regarding Dr. Harris’ comment that psychological gender differences probably play a role (of unknown magnitude) in explaining why only 5% of Fortune 500 companies are run by women, you wrote: “Sam Harris has no idea what proportion of each explanation contributes, but he's “confident” that each plays a role?!”

    Sorry, HJ, but there is no gotcha moment here for you to “grab your trophy and do a victory lap” over. You’ve identified no contradiction, and therefore nothing false or unwarranted. I can say that I’m confident that salt is in the recipe for chicken soup even though I don’t know how much goes in.

    Hyde’s paper identified gender differences in sexuality and aggression. Knowing that these limited differences exist, it is eminently reasonable to be confident that they play some role in explaining the Fortune 500 phenomenon, even if it is a small role – a possibility that Harris’ acknowledged. You can’t just stomp around claiming that that’s sexist without showing how that idea could not be reasonably believed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So I’m going to ask you once again, HJ, because your track record here is so poor, to back up your accusations of sexism by identifying the false or unwarranted assumption and then arguing for why no reasonable person could hold that assumption because it is false or unwarranted. If you can’t do that, then withhold or withdraw the accusation of sexism. I’m just asking you to make the case based on your own definition of ‘sexism’, just as I made a case against those charges in my blog based on my (virtually identical) definition.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I will remind you that you were the one who raised Greta Christina’s “argument” as a brilliant piece of work in support of your case that Harris’ comments were sexist. I’ve read it and I’m unimpressed. It is a common feature of philosophical interlocution that when someone mentions the argument(s) of another in support of their own position, particularly when those arguments are “especially clear”, that that person provides a summary of the relevant premises and of the syllogism, or at least sketches out the basics of the case. Since you brought it up, I’m asking you to explain why you think her piece is so good and so supportive of your position. Of course, I can’t force you to do that, but that doesn’t mean that my request isn’t completely fair and justified. For the record, it still stands, even though I am growing weary of diffusing poorly justified accusations of sexism.

    ReplyDelete
  21. My next 2 weeks are busy and I have to prepare for educational and scientific conferences that I am participating in this month. I hope that we can focus our discussion on the evidence as it relates to Harris’ original comments. This is where your criticism is strongest and where I will freely admit that you have the greatest opportunity to change my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  22. No. It’s not at all obvious that that’s a false assumption. Perhaps the reason that Dr. Harris so admires women is because of the degree of equality that they have managed to accomplish in a historically male dominated world.

    Except only a small fraction of women have significantly contributed to that. Up here in Canada, the National Association of Women and the Law was instrumental in revising our laws, yet most of the public have never heard of them let alone tossed some money their way.

    This also ignores all the men who have contributed to advancing the cause of women; the 1983 parliament that did a major overhaul of our sexual assault law was almost entirely male, after all, and men have been feminist activists for over 40 years.

    So to grant automatic respect to an entire gender, regardless of their actual contribution to equality and by diminishing the contribution of other genders, is quite sexist.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hyde’s paper identified gender differences in sexuality and aggression. Knowing that these limited differences exist, it is eminently reasonable to be confident that they play some role in explaining the Fortune 500 phenomenon, even if it is a small role – a possibility that Harris’ acknowledged.

    But there's no evidence Harris knows of Hyde's work, let alone knows anything of sociological research on the subject. His assertions are without warrant, yet he is "confident" of them. So the charge of sexism still sticks, and there still is a paradox here.

    You're also making the classic mistake of implying "because these differences exist, they must be the product of biology." On what basis do you conclude this?

    ReplyDelete
  24. (one quick edit, if I may:)

    You're also making the classic mistake of implying "because these differences exist, they must be the product of biology at least in part." On what basis do you conclude this?

    ReplyDelete
  25. “So to grant automatic respect to an entire gender, regardless of their actual contribution to equality and by diminishing the contribution of other genders, is quite sexist.” – HJ Hornbeck Oct 13

    HJ, in your attempted refutation of one cherry-picked example of several ways that I provided for Harris to be completely justified in claiming that he respects women more than men, you consider only “significant contributions” (whatever they are) to gender equality made by a select few. Huh.

    Coming from someone who calls himself a feminist, I find your willingness to ignore the contributions of billions of everyday women to the cause astounding, disappointing, and disturbing. My mom, like many women, carried 2 children, managed a household, went back to school to earn another degree, and still worked a full time job. She became a leader in her field against much greater odds and challenges than a man would have faced. She is one among billions of heroes of feminism who daily – no hourly – have to go the extra mile because of the male dominated status quo. Are they not all sufficient (if not *excellent*) reasons to respect women more than men (even if there have also been men who have fought for the cause)? I’d really like to hear your response.

    So I emphatically reject your narrow consideration of female contributions to gender equality and I reject the idea that the extra battles faced by women everyday don’t amount to a completely justified and non-sexist reason to respect women more than men. But even if I granted you that this was an unwarranted reason, I still provided numerous other ones. Here’s what else I wrote and which you have ignored:

    “(1) Perhaps the psychological differences in sexuality and aggression that Dr. Hyde identified in her study cause Harris to respect men *less*. (2) Perhaps Harris thinks that the world would be a better place if in certain ways, men were more like women. (3) Perhaps Harris sees the gender differences that Dr. Hyde points out in her study as a sign that males are less well suited for the more peaceful and complicated world we now live in. I could go on.”

    How do you know that Harris isn’t thinking anything along any of those lines? Are you a mind reader? How can you in good conscience claim that his extra respect for females is “quite sexist”?

    Remember that you are the one accusing him of sexism. Accordingly, you have a burden of proof. How do you know that Harris doesn’t have a perfectly justifiable reason for respecting women more than men? You can’t know that because you don’t know what his reason(s) is. So you’re burden then, is to show that he *can’t* be justified in doing so. To do that, you have to show how *each* of the examples I provided is unjustified. Have at it, but please, no more elitist and irrelevant derailments like the suggestions that only a minority of females are responsible for “significant” contributions to feminism.

    Here’s a suggestion: before accusing him of sexism, why don’t you ask Harris why he respects women more than men, and then judge whether his reason is sexist. Oh, wait, you aren’t in communication with Harris and you can’t ask him? Well then retract your charge of sexism and apologize here at my blog for the accusation you have here raised. That’ll do, too.

    ReplyDelete
  26. “But there's no evidence Harris knows of Hyde's work, let alone knows anything of sociological research on the subject. His assertions are without warrant, yet he is "confident" of them. So the charge of sexism still sticks, and there still is a paradox here.” – HJ Hornbeck, Oct 13

    I am assuming that Harris is familiar with the literature on psychological gender differences, but that is the reasonable (and charitable) thing to do when an intelligent, articulate scientist with an excellent track record of well informed writing writes a blog post about psychological gender differences and uses (as I have already pointed out n my last blog entry) the same kind of language that the relevant investigators use in describing their findings. Plus, both papers I cited (especially Hyde’s) are top hits on even rudimentary Google searches, which is how I found them.

    You, on the other hand, have no reason whatsoever to suggest that he isn’t familiar with the literature (that turns out to support his comments) except that, because the evidence exists, the only opportunity that remains for you to suggest that his comments were unwarranted is to suggest that he was ill prepared and unaware aware of the data. This move of yours is perhaps most revealing of your blindness to reason and fairness (the zeal I referred to in my last blog entry). You’re going to accuse Sam Harris of sexism and you just won’t take no for an answer, even if it means that *you* must end up having to make unwarranted accusations about him not being aware of the relevant research. Note the irony here.

    ReplyDelete
  27. “You're also making the classic mistake of implying "because these differences exist, they must be the product of biology, at least in part." On what basis do you conclude this?” HJ Hornbeck, Oct 13.

    I made no such mistake. Nothing I wrote suggests that the psychological gender differences Hyde identified and which may be contributing to the Fortune 500 phenomenon Harris brought up “must be a product of biology” in part or otherwise. Please read what I wrote more carefully. If you still think I’m wrong, then please quote where I suggested that and point it out to me.

    ReplyDelete
  28. My mom, like many women, carried 2 children, managed a household, went back to school to earn another degree, and still worked a full time job. She became a leader in her field against much greater odds and challenges than a man would have faced. She is one among billions of heroes of feminism who daily – no hourly – have to go the extra mile because of the male dominated status quo.

    You don't know what feminism is, do you? It's the active struggle against systematic sexism. You've done the equivalent of calling all slaves "abolitionists." Very few were, even though almost all worked very hard.

    How do you know that Harris isn’t thinking anything along any of those lines?

    As I explained on the 5th:

    If he hasn't spent five minutes trying to make himself more appealing to a wider demographic, it's very unlikely he's spent more time investigating the nature of this “appeal.”

    The same argument applies here too. If he hasn't bothered to spend five minutes on a task that would earn him more readers and fans, what are the odds that he's looked into the sociology studies on gender difference? It isn't in his area of expertise, either.

    How can you in good conscience claim that his extra respect for females is “quite sexist”?

    It fits perfectly with my earlier definition. Are you going to try refuting that, or just continue to point at studies you don't fully understand?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am assuming that Harris is familiar with the literature on psychological gender differences

    He has a Bachelors in Philosophy and a PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience. How does that make him an expert on Sociology, let alone gender in a sociological context?

    Nothing I wrote suggests that the psychological gender differences Hyde identified and which may be contributing to the Fortune 500 phenomenon Harris brought up “must be a product of biology” in part or otherwise. Please read what I wrote more carefully.

    Right back at you:

    You're also making the classic mistake of implying "because these differences exist, they must be the product of biology, at least in part.

    We can easily show behavioral differences can be explained by social factors, and that in the vast majority of cases the differences between sexes fall within the range of what can be explained by social factors.

    In contrast, claims of biological factors are based on sampling a small pool of mostly-Caucasian people who have more wealth and education than average and live in developed nations, or simply ignore potential social factors, and either way fail to realize the priors on their hypothesis are quite low.

    So we're not justified in assuming any level of biological influence by default, as it runs contrary to the priors and evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "You don't know what feminism is, do you? It's the active struggle against systematic sexism. You've done the equivalent of calling all slaves "abolitionists." Very few were, even though almost all worked very hard." - HJH

    By getting an extra degree, my mom actively challenged the idea that women needn't get a higher education. By working, my mom actively challenged the idea that women should stay home. By excelling at her job, my mom actively challenged the idea that women can’t be as good at a job as a man. My mom’s active struggle against systematic sexism made her a role model for other women and men to change their minds about these sexist ideas. She and millions of women struggled to effect a change in culture, even if they didn't directly change legislature. I am utterly appalled that you would suggest otherwise.

    Your slavery analogy fails. By working hard, slaves do not promote the idea that they are equal. But by working hard to achieve what men are achieving, women do promote the idea that they are equal. How can you not see these things, HJ?

    I’m beginning to wonder to what depths you will sink, HJ, to defend the indefensible…

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'll remind you that your response is, again, irrelevant. My mom was not intended to be an example of whatever you consider to represent feminism. Her struggle and the struggles of billions represent warranted reasons to admire and respect women more than men. So you still haven't touched any of the 4 warranted reasons I provided by which Harris could justifiably admire/respect women more than men without being sexist.

    ReplyDelete
  32. “He has a Bachelors in Philosophy and a PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience. How does that make him an expert on Sociology, let alone gender in a sociological context?”-HJH

    Dealing with your repeated red herrings, tangents, and non-sequiturs is becoming tiresome, HJ.

    It doesn’t follow from the fact that Harris isn’t an expert in the field, that he wasn’t’ familiar with enough of the literature to recognize that the idea that significant relevant psychological gender differences exist is a viable one. The two papers I uncovered as a non-expert are sufficient. Oh, I know that they don’t satisfy you, but that’s a different matter entirely from whether the idea is a viable one.

    It doesn’t follow from the fact that Harris hasn’t spent 5 minutes trying to change his writing voice (a matter of artistic, personal style), that he wouldn’t have done his homework to prepare for a blog entry about psychological gender differences.

    Your accusation that Harris had done no homework remains completely unwarranted (unless you are a mind reader) and completely self-serving.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "It fits perfectly with my earlier definition."-HJH

    What earlier definition? Are you using different definitions of sexism to support your accusations? I thought that after all of that irrelevant discourse, when I accepted your definition to assuage your irrelevant concerns about the M-W definition of sexism, we had agreed on a definition. By THAT definition (comments or actions based upon false or unwarranted assumptions) your assertion that Harris' greater respect for women is sexist has utterly failed. So if you've got another definition, you'll have to tell me what it is. Among all of the irrelevant hogwash I've had to respond to, I've lost track...

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Right back at you:"

    When you quote where I indicated that whatever psychological gender differences might be at play, they must *even in part*, or *at least in part* (whatever satisfies you) must be due to biology, I'll respond.

    ReplyDelete
  35. By getting an extra degree, my mom actively challenged the idea that women needn't get a higher education. By working, my mom actively challenged the idea that women should stay home. By excelling at her job, my mom actively challenged the idea that women can’t be as good at a job as a man.

    I take it you've never heard of System Justification Theory or Queen Bee Syndrome. "Attained a degree/recognition" does not imply "worked against systematic oppression."

    It doesn’t follow from the fact that Harris isn’t an expert in the field, that he wasn’t’ familiar with enough of the literature to recognize that the idea that significant relevant psychological gender differences exist is a viable one.

    If he was familiar with the literature, he'd invoke it. Nothing in his history suggests he's familiar with it, as I pointed out, and it's highly unlikely he'd search it out if he hasn't spent five minutes looking into how he can better appeal to women.

    By THAT definition (comments or actions based upon false or unwarranted assumptions) your assertion that Harris' greater respect for women is sexist has utterly failed.

    I read back through this thread, and your refutations either assume Harris knows more about the literature than is in evidence, or assume attainment is equivalent to working against systematic oppression. As neither are true, my three examples still stand.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Two more red herrings and shifting the burden of proof will not suffice, HJ.

    ReplyDelete