23 Comments

There are still a few reasons to be proud to be a man.

"The demographics of censorship supporters will be no surprise to those who've read George Orwell: "It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy."

Expand full comment

"There are still a few reasons to be proud to be a man."

One should never be proud of something that was not of their doing.

Expand full comment

Western civilization?

Expand full comment

Yes.

Expand full comment

I think it is fair to be proud of upholding Western Civ in our own little ways, but you are right. Just being an inheritor of something praiseworthy does not me we are ourselves worthy of praise.

Expand full comment

Very impressive! Any chance you could write about the very interesting phenomenon where many/most scientists, and definitely science's fan base, are oblivious if not worse to what you've pointed out here? It's a very big problem.

Expand full comment

Husband is a highly cited hard scientist. He is well aware. The scientists who refuse to do the pertinent research and the hiring are well aware. One's career depends on department heads answering to non-scientific bureaucrats, who are ideologically captured, and would not find data persuasive or even be interested in it.

Expand full comment

"...would not find data persuasive or even be interested in it."

I recall the Norwegian researcher asking Greg Cochrane "But why would you even want to know about that?"

Expand full comment

Weird, the way science is described online one might think it's just shy of perfection!

Tell your hubby to hang in there.

Expand full comment

True, being an anonymous is a nice move, I remember listening a British-Venezolan national-conservative proposing as a policy ''unless you live in a country where they'll repress you for your opinio, if you want to give your political opinions you must be a public person and not hide your identity'' when I hear I thought ''bruh, you're making the woke doxxers job''

Expand full comment

Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. It was Darwin’s insights, among others, that turned a world of naturalists into biologists. In other words, it went from not science to science. Newton did the same for physics. “Psychology” has no such history and is simply not science. Until there is some consensus, with actual data, say, on what this “psyche” even is, there is only stories and opinions, etc, and sadly, most of these stories and opinions are treated as dogma and peddled to credulous schools and students throughout the globe.

Expand full comment

Somewhat true but overstated. Psychology does have many solidly-evidenced lessons. Unfortunately, it also has lots of poorly-evidenced ones and sorting this out takes time.

Expand full comment

Those scholars and scientists devoted to gathering and disseminating knowledge will do so.

Expand full comment

I want to believe this is correct. Those in the hard sciences that I know, their very intellectual existence consists of discovering verifiable "facts"--universal truths. They have been this way since adolescence, and distortion of results is completely and totally unsatisfactory.

So my guess is that for this era, they may be driven gradually from academia toward enterprises who profit the most by applying new universal truths to social problems that have so much value that they have a ready-made market.

Expand full comment

"I want to believe this is correct"

I also want to believe that because those people are the essence of human evolution.

"So my guess is that for this era, they may be driven gradually from academia toward enterprises who profit the most by applying new universal truths to social problems that have so much value that they have a ready-made market."

If that is the case, it may be the best outcome for a sorry situation; at least their talents would not be wasted.

Expand full comment

That academics say they don't want research discouraged is not the same as not quietly discouraging it. We all mostly know what we are supposed to say. I don't say that they are lying or believe the opposite but won't say so, only that we are all likely to fool ourselves on such matters.

Expand full comment

It would seem incongruous to advocate individualism and group identity at the same time.

Just saying this seems almost too obvious. When we advocate for the primacy of individualism, we highlight the uniqueness of every living being. This, of course, applies to people.

When we talk about groups and group differences, we subsume the individual into the socalled group. Poof!

And then we encounter the most troubling aspect of "group identity:" how do we define the characteristics of the group? Who gets to define the group?

Should we define a group as tall people with short arms? How about people who have long toes and blond hair? Shall we add small ears?

It is absurd. The entire concept of group identity should be scrapped. If we advocate for individualism, then we must throw out group identity completely.

I will proceed on this path.

Expand full comment

I'm increasingly uncomfortable with surveys as the source for data.

I realize that it represents at least *some* information, but my intuition makes me think that asking anyone anything, under any circumstances, is bound to be flawed because what an individuals *says* and what they do are not tightly bound. This is true even in very tolerant eras. The human mind is flighty, often.

Too, in an era of increased taboos, the atmosphere encourages or demands an increased adherence to dogmas, if merely for self-survival. No matter how the questions are structure, or the methodology designed for anonymity, I'm convinced that the social atmosphere drives a certain amount of distortion, both in adherence to an orthodox position, and a sort of heroic bombast against it.

But, it is better than nothing...

Expand full comment

taboos are truly the barrier to learn deeper certain issues. However, certain taboos aimed to protect feelings and other moral dilemmas. Facts based on science are important in society, but I'm afraid that certain facts will be the excuse to abuse the community/other people. I know, this sounds too pessimist, but that's what I see in my community.

Expand full comment

Interesting article, thank you!

What is the explanation for the taboo conclusion regarding "racial bias in academia" being believed by more women? Was the woke/non-woke valence of that conclusion flipped as compared to all the others? I refer to the chart under the sentence "In terms of the origins of censorship, female professors believed every inegalitarian or non-woke conclusion less than men, as shown below.". I am trying to make sense of the fact that the taboo conclusion labeled "racial bias and crime" has more men believing it, while the taboo conclusion labeled "racial bias in academia" has more women believing it.

Expand full comment

I guess the explanation is that the label on the y axis of "taboo conclusion" does not apply to the last data point, since that last one is the mainstream conclusion (that there exists substantial racism in academia, presumably). The other nine are the taboo conclusions about their topics. So, the chart misrepresents the last data point.

Expand full comment
deletedMay 21
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Take another look at it.

Expand full comment

The y axis is labeled as "taboo conclusions", so the last point does not belong, in that it is a mainstream conclusion. That's why its valence is switched compared to the nine others.

Expand full comment