Keeping up with the FITs, 1/24
Heather Heying on gender differences; Mike Solana on Hereticon; Razib Khan vs. Scientific American; Jordan Peterson vs. DEI; Glenn Loury hosts a school voucher proponent
High-risk tasks which require high strength, stamina, and/or burst speed are likely to be exclusively or nearly exclusively male tasks across the societies censused. See: the hunting of whales, or bison, or the cutting down of trees, or the mining of ores.
The scientific literature would, in large part, have you believe that women are less competitive than men. Look closely, however, and find a category error. It is not that women are less competitive, it is that we are, on average, differently competitive.
Every day I’m asked if I’ll release audio from last week, and this, in some form, is my intention. But the recordings of a few staged talks are also not Hereticon, because Hereticon didn’t happen on stage. Hereticon happened at the bar. Hereticon was a bunch of crazy people making friends and talking to each other, in person, which I cannot recommend more highly.
Most conferences have speakers and panels. I guess having speakers and panels helps to send a signal of who should attend. But speakers and panels are actually the worst part of any conference.
Razib Khan was not happy with Scientific American for its op-ed attacking the recently deceased E.O. Wilson.
My immediate reaction was that the op-ed was indecent. It was muddled and uninformed at best, disrespectful and misleading at worst. Along with many others, I expressed this view on social media and began to hear from yet more who weren’t speaking publicly. I heard through the grapevine that multiple Scientific American staffers were embarrassed by the piece and was I encouraged to submit a rebuttal. After a quick flurry of emails and direct messages, a few of us agreed this shouldn’t be allowed to stand without a rebuttal.
SA would not publish the rebuttal. This incident illustrates one of my aphorisms about the contemporary era. That is, we are living in a Golden Age of information, but it is not evenly distributed. Razib Khan represents the Golden Age, with his deep knowledge and clear writing on population genetics. Meanwhile, Scientific American’s values are neither scientific nor American. It probably still is more influential than Razib Khan. But I hope not for long.
It’s usually bad practice to promote somebody’s rant just because you agree with it. But I can’t help myself in the case of Jordan Peterson on Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity.
And all of you going along with the DIE activists, whatever your reasons: this is on you. Professors. Cowering cravenly in pretence and silence. Teaching your students to dissimulate and lie. To get along. As the walls crumble. For shame. CEOs: signalling a virtue you don’t possess and shouldn’t want to please a minority who literally live their lives by displeasure. You’re evil capitalists, after all, and should be proud of it. At the moment, I can’t tell if you’re more reprehensibly timid even than the professors. Why the hell don’t you banish the human resource DIE upstarts back to the more-appropriately-named Personnel departments, stop them from interfering with the psyches of you and your employees, and be done with it? Musicians, artists, writers: stop bending your sacred and meritorious art to the demands of the propagandists before you fatally betray the spirit of your own intuition. Stop censoring your thought. Stop saying you will hire for your orchestral and theatrical productions for any reason other than talent and excellence. That’s all you have. That’s all any of us have.
What is the counter-argument? DIE is a good thing, and we need more of it? DIE is not such a good thing, but Peterson grossly exaggerates the harm that it causes?
On Glenn Loury’s substack, Charles L. Glenn writes,
The irony is that this focus on empowering parents—especially those with modest resources—to make decisions about the education of their children, within appropriate safeguards, has come to be seen in “enlightened” circles as regressive. There are many calling for “social justice” who believe it essential for the state to promote the autonomy of children by radically limiting the influence of their families and communities.