1) Progressives have ruined the humans sciences. The latest example is Nature Reviews Psychology encouraging authors to include a "citation diversity statement." But the damage was already near total.
2) What is a citation diversity statement? Well, it's essentially a letter confirming the authors' efforts to cite non-white, non-male, non-Western scholars. For progressives, diversity is a euphemism for "fewer white men."
3) Science is supposed to be meritocratic, though. Good papers get cited because they are good papers. Not because the authors are black disabled scholars. This policy is thus antithetical to the spirit of science.
4) How did such a prestigious journal reach such an appalling low? The pernicious cultural progressivism that ravages the human sciences began in the humanities, in literary criticism and sociology.
5) I had wanted to major in literature, but the field proved appalling. Evolutionary psychology was dismissed as an apology for white men, while Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, and other motley mountebanks were exalted. Everything was oppression.
6) But this was easy for others to ignore. Let the neo-Freudians prattle about Oedipal complexes in Proust. who cares? At least the scientists were still doing the real work of understanding man.
7) But cultural progressivism kept spreading like an escaped laboratory monster from a bad horror film. Soon it was attacking and subverting the human sciences. People fought back outside the academy, but inside there was little resistance.
8) People unfamiliar with academia often accuse me of exaggeration. Yet if anything, the truth is worse than I can convey. Social psychology has become a propaganda arm of progressivism. It no longer even tries to explain human social nature.
9) After the riots of 2020, everything accelerated. Peak wokeness. The revolutionaries saw their moment and acted with alacrity, seizing the means of information production.
10) The APA released two documents that stand out: one apologizing to “people of color” for psychology’s complicity in white supremacy, and another describing psychology’s role in dismantling systemic racism. Both were more religious than scientific.
11) More disturbing still was an editorial in Nature Human Behavior essentially asserting that editors would reject articles that offended the moral sensibilities of egalitarians.
12) This was an explicit assertion that the human sciences were subordinating the pursuit of truth to the pursuit of "social justice." Race and IQ? Forget about it. Honest discussion of sex differences? Not a chance.
13) The cause of this mess is straightforward: Progressivism is committed to doctrines about human equality that are inconsistent with reality. Thus, progressives are compelled to stifle science, lest the truth destroy their political vision.
14) Ironically, progressives still claim to "trust the science" while actively suppressing the honest study of human variation and while rejecting the straightforward consequences of Darwinism. Indeed, they have become the new creationists.
15) The human sciences are a disaster. If you want to understand human nature, read Goethe or Mann, Turgenev or Tolstoy, Balzac or Proust, Dickens or Lawrence. You will not find it in modern psychology journals. They made their choice. The pursuit of truth lost.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) Feminization may not spell the end of the West, but it is almost certain to erode the traditional values that have long sustained its key institutions. In this essay, I address several objections raised to Helen Andrews’ argument on the feminization of public life.
2) In the New York Times, David French attacked Andrews' piece for heroizing men and denigrating women. He contended that Andrews was ignoring "even a cursory analysis" of history, pointing out that men have often created brutal cancel cultures that suppressed dissent.
3) This is a fallacious argument. That men have created many intolerant institutions is irrelevant to Andrews' claim. Men have also have created liberal democracies, science, rule of law, and the free press. Women likely cannot create similar institutions; men obviously can.
(1) On average, Black Americans score substantially lower than White Americans on standardized tests of cognitive ability. This finding is well-established and largely uncontested in the academic literature.
(2) The only major question is about the cause (s) of these persistent disparities. Hereditarians argue that genetic factors play a significant role, while environment-only theorists contend that differences in physical, social, and cultural environments are the primary drivers.
(3) More than anyone else, Arthur Jensen established modern hereditarianism. In his 1969 article, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?," he argued compellingly that the environment-only hypothesis was implausible and that efforts to raise intelligence had failed.
1. Woke is about race. Without race differences, woke would not exist. Those who write about woke without writing about race differences are like scientists who write about chemical reactions without writing about atoms. Cofnas @nathancofnas is right. aporiamagazine.com/p/woke-is-abou…
2. Michael Shermer recently wrote about the causes of woke, but did not mention race differences. His analysis is therefore misleading. Woke is not primarily a flawed understanding of human nature; it is a flawed understanding of *race*.
3. Shermer forwarded three ultimate causes of woke. Of these, blank slate ideology is the most important. But is the blank slate model really the primary ultimate cause of wokism?
A major problem with the "It's unseemly to focus on the causes of racial disparities" argument is that the media WILL focus on racial disparities. Endlessly. And we know they have an answer. Racism.
You can't have it both ways. If focusing on racial disparities is unseemly, then the proposed cause should be irrelevant.
And if it's reasonable to point to racism, then it's also reasonable to point to groups differences in relevant traits.
Ultimately people like Yglesias who want to preserve the taboo about race differences end up promoting a double standard. If the cause is racism, we can discuss it. If not, we should be quiet.
2. He notes that blacks are massively disproportionately represented in the NBA, but so are men from the former Yugoslavia. However, he also notes he has not looked into the causes because it would be "unseemly" to be preoccupied with such a question.
3. We take the taboo against pursuing questions about race differences for granted, but this assertion should astonish us. A smart, curious man (Matt) is embracing ignorance about a compelling question because it is "unseemly." This is illiberal and anti-intellectual.
1. Hughes should be praised for his consistency and thoughtfulness, but the color blindness that he advocates is impossible and should be rejected by any realist about human nature. It is no more plausible than communism. And perhaps more insidious.
3. The extreme social constructionist view is exceedingly unlikely to be true. Human populations differ from each other in patterned and predictable ways. Hughes recognizes this and argues that race is somewhere between a natural kind and a social construct.