Odds and Ends

A secular government in Iraq? . . . An article in the New York Times today reports that the Iraqi Shiites, who seem destined to win a large majority in the upcoming elections, "have decided to put a secular face on the new Iraqi government they plan to form, relegating Islam to a supporting role." Oh, if only that is so. And, that if only it would stay that way. It's hard to believe that this is how things will turn out in fact though.

Safire Out To Pasture . . . William Safire announced his retirement as a New York Times Op-Ed columnist with a quartet of columns on his "relationships" (his word, not mine) with First Ladies from Pat Nixon to Hillary Clinton, a lookback at the status of some of his "journalistic crusades," some amusingly self-deprecating advise on "How to Read a Column," and an elegy to self-renewal entitled "Never Retire." They are vintage Safire: urbane, witty, a touch nostalgic -- and slightly out of touch. The "Never Retire" piece, in particular, seems divorced from the reality of the people to whom it is ostensibly addressed. After attributing to himself (probably correctly -- who knows) the aphorism "When you're through changing, you're through," he goes on to offer his readers the following advice:

[N]ever retire, but plan to change your career to keep your synapses snapping . . . . [R]etraining and fresh stimulation are what all of us should require in "the last of life, for which the first was made." Athletes and dancers deal with the need to retrain in their 30's, workers in their 40's, managers in their 50's, politicians in their 60's, academics and media biggies in their 70's. The trick is to start early in our careers the stress-relieving avocation that we will need later as a mind-exercising final vocation. We can quit a job, but we quit fresh involvement at our mental peril.

Sound advice no doubt, but who besides someone on Safire's position can afford to do it? I suspect that most people who have worked at essentially the same job for 20 or more years daydream about finding something else to do, something to "keep the synapses snapping," as it were. But most of us are constrained to a far greater degree that Safire is by a combination of economic necessity and lack of opportunity into staying the course until it becomes just too boring and/or we are forcibly put out to pasture in favor of younger (and hungrier) blood.

Still, I have to admit that Safire is right about one thing: like financial retirement planning, the trick to planning the second or third career is to start early with an avocation that we ultimately turn into a vocation. Like starting early on financial planning, though, this is advice that, for most people, is far easier to agree with than to follow.

I for one will miss Mr. Safire's opinions. If nothing else they were consistently reliable blog-fodder. I wonder who they have/will get to replace him.

More on Summers . . . . Kevin Drum asked what seems to me to be the right question about the whole imbroglio over Larry Summers remarks about the possible capability differences between men and women in math and science: Instead of wasting so much angst and ink on the genetic question, why don't we focus instead on the socialization issue. One tid-bit he cites in making this point comes from a NY Times article today summarizing some of the research on the differences in innate capabilities:

Dr. [Megan] Urry cited a 1983 study in which 360 people — half men, half women — rated mathematics papers on a five-point scale. On average, the men rated them a full point higher when the author was "John T. McKay" than when the author was "Joan T. McKay." There was a similar, but smaller disparity in the scores the women gave. (Emphasis added).

Kevin (rightly, I think) questions why this type of issue isn't getting more press. Who knows if there is a genetic difference? More important, who cares? Either way, there is little we can do about it. However, the socialization issues captured in the quoted blurb -- men's negative perceptions of women's capabilities and, perhaps more disturbing, women's negative perceptions of women's capabilities -- ARE things we could do something about. The problem with the genetic explanations for differences in capabilities is not so much that they are right or wrong. Rather it is that they provide an excuse for doing nothing Yet it seems likely that the "nurture" aspect of this problem is at least as important as the nature aspect and that is something that we have to power to impact directly. As such, that is the issue that seems worth the attention.