It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World, at least if you look at who Williams and Ceci thought worthy of responding to.
Wendy Williams and Stephen Ceci wrote another response to the critics of their study. (Here’s their study, and my original article criticizing it.) I don’t have anything in particular to say about the contents of their response — in a sense there’s nothing new in it, and they don’t adequately address the formal criticisms laid out by others. In particular, I recommend revisiting Zuleyka Zevallos‘ excellent analysis, and her follow-up. However, I did want to bring up two very important points.
First: several media outlets (CNN, Science Careers, and now the Huffington Post, after last year’s New York Times op-ed) have been happy to let Williams and Ceci not only promote their work, but also characterize their critics. In other words, the editors of these publications decided to let Williams and Ceci give their version of their critics’ arguments and motives — which are not accurate versions of either. This is not responsible journalism.
Second: in the Huffington Post rebuttal, Williams and Ceci only respond to articles written by men (including me). That’s very interesting and problematic, given that ...