Excellent essay, as usual. When any political tendency -- Left or Right -- makes a subject impossible to discuss, it's because they are afraid that discussion of it will undermine their cause.
To make a subject impossible to discuss, they link such discussion to the violation of something that is at the heart of Western civilization, which for want of a better term, we may call 'individualism'. One aspect of this concept is that the individual is not responsible for what has been done, or is being done, by other individuals with whom he may share some characteristics. We reject the idea of 'collective guilt'.
Thus a German is not, because he is a German, responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. A Black person, because he is Black, is not responsible for the high Black crime rate. (Of course, the Left does not extend this attitude to whites.)
And, keeping in mind the powerful influence of subjective beliefs, we extend this attitude in other directions. Not only do we reject 'collective guilt', we tend to reject all attribution of collective characteristics of a group, to individual members of that group -- at least if they're negative.
So, it's a fact that almost all great mathematicians and scientists have been males. (That they were mainly European males is tempered by the fact that non-European societies also produced notable mathematicians, but fell into decline before their mathematical and scientific achievements reached the critical mass that they did in Europe beginning in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.) So, it became commonplace for many people to assume that there must be evolutionarily-driven biological roots for this: our distant ancestral women didn't need to throw spears, so they didn't develop the spatial sense needed for mathematics. Or something.
The Left rejected this, and put it all down to power relations in society -- in this case, sexual, rather than class, power. And they were right. Or, at least substantially right, as we now see women going into the fields of science and mathematics, and beginning to join the pantheon of high achievers there. (The Fields Medal -- the Nobel Prize of mathematics -- was won by a woman for the first time a few years ago.)
However, it is not necessary to close off investigation and discussion of group differences -- whether they are biologically rooted or exist for other reasons -- in order to uphold the principle that no individual is responsible for what his nation, race, sex or any other group-identity does.
And yet -- such discussion does indeed risk inflaming the prejudices of those -- and they are legion -- who will not or cannot understand the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent': because P implies Q, does not mean Q implies P. White males know from their own experience that because most violent criminals are male, it would be wrong to assume that most males are violent criminals. But their own experience may not extend to enough Black people to make the same deduction in the case of Blacks. (The majority of murders in the US are committed by young Black males, and this disproportion extends to other violent crimes. But most Blacks do not commit violent crimes.) Of course, the average person doesn't think in terms of either logic or logical fallacies. He just has attitudes, predispositions, expectations.
So there is a legitimate fear that publicizing certain facts will inflame prejudice. This is no doubt the rationale behind the mainstream media's differential treatment of criminal acts, especially inter-racial ones, by whites and Blacks.
However, the Left's response to this legitimate fear -- to forbid any discussion of group differences whatsoever -- actually plays into the hands of the genuine bigots, because it confirms their suspicions: "It must be true, because they don't want to talk about it."
Excellent essay, as usual. When any political tendency -- Left or Right -- makes a subject impossible to discuss, it's because they are afraid that discussion of it will undermine their cause.
To make a subject impossible to discuss, they link such discussion to the violation of something that is at the heart of Western civilization, which for want of a better term, we may call 'individualism'. One aspect of this concept is that the individual is not responsible for what has been done, or is being done, by other individuals with whom he may share some characteristics. We reject the idea of 'collective guilt'.
Thus a German is not, because he is a German, responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. A Black person, because he is Black, is not responsible for the high Black crime rate. (Of course, the Left does not extend this attitude to whites.)
And, keeping in mind the powerful influence of subjective beliefs, we extend this attitude in other directions. Not only do we reject 'collective guilt', we tend to reject all attribution of collective characteristics of a group, to individual members of that group -- at least if they're negative.
So, it's a fact that almost all great mathematicians and scientists have been males. (That they were mainly European males is tempered by the fact that non-European societies also produced notable mathematicians, but fell into decline before their mathematical and scientific achievements reached the critical mass that they did in Europe beginning in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.) So, it became commonplace for many people to assume that there must be evolutionarily-driven biological roots for this: our distant ancestral women didn't need to throw spears, so they didn't develop the spatial sense needed for mathematics. Or something.
The Left rejected this, and put it all down to power relations in society -- in this case, sexual, rather than class, power. And they were right. Or, at least substantially right, as we now see women going into the fields of science and mathematics, and beginning to join the pantheon of high achievers there. (The Fields Medal -- the Nobel Prize of mathematics -- was won by a woman for the first time a few years ago.)
However, it is not necessary to close off investigation and discussion of group differences -- whether they are biologically rooted or exist for other reasons -- in order to uphold the principle that no individual is responsible for what his nation, race, sex or any other group-identity does.
And yet -- such discussion does indeed risk inflaming the prejudices of those -- and they are legion -- who will not or cannot understand the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent': because P implies Q, does not mean Q implies P. White males know from their own experience that because most violent criminals are male, it would be wrong to assume that most males are violent criminals. But their own experience may not extend to enough Black people to make the same deduction in the case of Blacks. (The majority of murders in the US are committed by young Black males, and this disproportion extends to other violent crimes. But most Blacks do not commit violent crimes.) Of course, the average person doesn't think in terms of either logic or logical fallacies. He just has attitudes, predispositions, expectations.
So there is a legitimate fear that publicizing certain facts will inflame prejudice. This is no doubt the rationale behind the mainstream media's differential treatment of criminal acts, especially inter-racial ones, by whites and Blacks.
However, the Left's response to this legitimate fear -- to forbid any discussion of group differences whatsoever -- actually plays into the hands of the genuine bigots, because it confirms their suspicions: "It must be true, because they don't want to talk about it."