Because racists like the idea of inherited group differences, some want to deplatform ANY studies of heritable traits.
In the Daily Beast last week, Dan Samorodnitsky demanded an end to the publication of research into innate traits: “The time for simply debating whether there are meaningful genetic differences between humans is long past.” Such studies propped up an unjust social order by suggesting that more able people rose to the top. Worse, “research like this trickles down into violent thought, both through the end of a gun or the flow of a pen.”
There are some obvious flaws with this line of reasoning. For one thing, if we banned writing that might be misinterpreted, we would censor almost every serious piece of literature. Both books of the Bible have been used to justify violence and genocide, as has the Quran. Should they be banned because of how some people interpret them? What about the works of Karl Marx, whose doctrine inspired 100 million killings, making it the most lethal ideology invented? Should the communist corpus be held responsible for every crime carried out in its name?
For another, there is massive disproportionality at work. Critics don’t just want to halt the conversation about innate group differences — they want to repress any discussion of heritability, which is driving a great deal of medical research.
But the biggest problem is the idea that, in an internet age, you can get away with what Plato called a “noble lie” — a falsehood that the wise perpetrate upon the masses for their own good. The noble lie, in this instance, is that, barring some obvious superficial differences, human populations are essentially the same and divergent outcomes are down to social conditioning or structural discrimination.
In fact, there is a mass of evidence to the effect that male and female personalities differ in ways that are innate and consistent across cultures, and that perceived differences in ethnicity conform very closely to genetic differences. … Men tend, on average, to be more focused on things and systems, women on people and relationships.
Evolutionary selection pressures have not stopped, and local populations differ in aggregate traits — for example, different types of inherited immunity to certain diseases. …
To deny all this evidence is not simply futile. It is actively damaging because it weakens the ethical case against discrimination. … The real objection to discrimination is that it is morally wrong, not that it is unscientific. To put it another way, what is objectionable is ascribing group averages to each person, rather than admitting that they exist at all. It is wrong to say, “You shouldn’t study math because you’re a girl.” It is not wrong to say, “In aggregate, more male than female students will pick math.”
Perhaps the falsehood closest to the hearts of the woke is that there are no statistical differences between large groups of people. It’s obviously incorrect, a noble lie. It’s better to acknowledge the truth, and devise policies that are the most moral and effective.
The woke are so primitive and retarded. They try to ban the truth, rather than cope with it. They leave us all worse off, because they don’t deal, for instance, with this:
In the light of that information, only a self-interested parasite or a virtue signaler would be demanding 50% female representation in board rooms or in jobs that require high IQs.