How Cancel Culture Works: The Lived Experience of Biologist Colin Wright

Many on the political left are increasingly proclaiming that cancel culture is not really a thing. Their most common tactic is to show that their best efforts are not successfully destroying the careers of prominent personalities such as J.K. Rowling and Steven Pinker. They ignore that many less-prominent people are successfully being chilled and cowed. These far more numerous lesser-known scientists and intellectuals are not sufficiently established in their careers to withstand repeated false broadside accusations that their (factually true) scientific observations are allegedly bigoted.  Thus, a deep intellectual chill has settled over the United States this summer.

At Quillette, biologist Colin Wright offers a detailed schematic of how cancel culture played out in his life. Like many others who have found that their jobs and reputations are under attack, Wright put the target on his own back by asserting scientifically true statements. In Wright's case, he asserted both that that there are only two sexes and that some people cannot be neatly categorized as male or female. These undeniably true statements appeared in an article titled "The Dangerous Denial of Sex," co-written by Wright and Emma N. Hilton, appearing in the Wall Street Journal on Feb 13, 2020. Here are the words of Wright and Hilton:

In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex “spectrum” or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary.

There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error. Denying the reality of biological sex and supplanting it with subjective “gender identity” is not merely an eccentric academic theory. It raises serious human-rights concerns for vulnerable groups including women, homosexuals and children.

Here, from Wright's article at Quillette, is the kind of thing that happens when people speak up, compelled by a sense of integrity and a burning desire to keep members of the public from being misled or harmed:

I was contacted by a biology-department chair at a private liberal arts college in the Midwest. He commended me for my writings, and told me that he’d even used my New Evolution Deniers essay as a basis for discussion in his own classes. But while he and his fellow biology-department faculty would likely support my hiring, he said, the school’s own human-resources department would almost certainly block me as “too risky.” These experiences remind me that when Blow extols “the masses” who are canceling people like me, the people he’s praising are actually just a small coalition of professional trolls such as Bird, working in effective concert with the risk-averse, upper-middle corporate bureaucrats who now have taken over decision-making on many college and university campuses.

I too have been seeing an increasing denial of cancel culture on social media, along with a denial of science, a hostility to the use of statistics to analyze complex social phenomena and even a disparagement of the intellectual tools we have inherited from The Enlightenment. See here, here and here. This is distressing for many of us to see this bullying of individuals and institutions and the consequent chilling of the many intellectuals who remain silent because they don't have the stomachs for unfair fights like these.

Continue ReadingHow Cancel Culture Works: The Lived Experience of Biologist Colin Wright

The Best Thing to Do About People Who Carefully Rely on Statistics When Analyzing Complex Social Issues? Fire Them.

What is the effect of violent protests (versus peaceful protests) on future elections? This would seem to be a compelling topic these days. As one example of many, would it affect voters to see a video of people breaking into a car dealership in Oakland, spray painting vehicles and then setting several vehicles on fire as part of a political protest related to the detestable homicide of George Floyd?

What if a person, citing relevant statistics by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, offers insights based on these statistics?  Apparently, the best response is to get that person fired because such a Tweet would allegedly be "racist."  That's what happened in the case of David Shor, as reported by Vox. The video posted above post-dates the firing of Shor, but I am posting it to illustrate.

Here is Shor's May 28, 2020 Tweet:

Now, two excerpts from the detailed article in Vox:

Mass demonstrations work, in other words, but looting and disorder are counterproductive. This was Shor’s sin: repeating Wasow’s findings that marching is good but looting and vandalism are counterproductive.

...

Shor did not say that protesting is harmful; he said that rioting is harmful. And he didn’t say that data should dictate how people feel. And while one data scientist’s tweet of one political science paper should not be the last word on social movement tactics, the reasonable response to Shor would be to counter with some other form of evidence. Instead, the dialogue followed a pattern in progressive circles that often involves making evidence-free assertions about how members of various groups feel.

My concern is that we have entered an era where many people and institutions exuberantly accept feelings as a the best way to understand the world, and that feelings are more compelling than careful analysis of facts, even when the factual analysis is based on statistics.  I am seeing ubiquitous examples where intelligent-seeming people declare that anecdotes are superior to careful analysis, both on the political left and right.

We seem to be entering a new Dark Age, where important conversations can no longer be had and where thoughtful people need to choose among these two options, where there are only these two options: A) Your need to express your thoughts freely in a nation created upon the assumption that people must talk with each other freely and B) Your need to not get fired from your job.

John McWhorter sees what might be a light at the end of the tunnel:

I hope McWhorter is correct.  I seem to be losing 1% of hope each day.

Continue ReadingThe Best Thing to Do About People Who Carefully Rely on Statistics When Analyzing Complex Social Issues? Fire Them.

Robin DiAngelo’s Cray-Cray Article

Robin DiAngelo's book, White Fragility, is deservedly under fire. As Tweeted by "The Woke Temple," Diangelo's book is merely a continuation of her articles, including Beyond the Face of Race: Em-Cognitive Explorations of White Neurosis and Racial Cray-Cray, by Cheryl E. Matias and Robin DiAngelo, Educational Foundations, v 27 p. 3-20, Sum-Fall 2013. The Woke Temple offers this graphic to feature some key quotes (and proposed responses) from DiAngelo's bizarre paper:

Continue ReadingRobin DiAngelo’s Cray-Cray Article

Rioters Trashing Biden’s Chances?

Andrew Sullivan writes:

What Trump has been doing since the Mount Rushmore speech—stupidly dismissed by woke media—is to try and cast this election as a battle between anarchy and the forces of law and order, between a radical dystopia laced with violence and the America we know. He’s trying to jujitsu the plague-fueled revolt into a winning campaign issue. He can’t exactly run on his record of double digit unemployment and an epidemic raging out of control. So this is his instinct. And politically, it’s not a bad one. In an environment where people are afraid and uncertain, authoritarianism has an edge. The more some cities descend into lawlessness and violence this summer, the edgier, and more popular, that performative authoritarianism could get.

Continue ReadingRioters Trashing Biden’s Chances?

Senator Ted Cruz Invites Eric Weinstein to Diagnose the United States

It is critically important for you to watch this one-hour video, "The Verdict," Hosted by Senator Ted Cruz. If you are thinking "Why the fuck would I want to see any show hosted by Ted Cruz, you are a big part of the problem, because on this show (released July 23) Cruz has reached far from his comfort zone, inviting Eric Weinstein as a guest. If you are worried about the future of the United States, I guarantee that you have an hour for this.

I follow Eric Weinstein on Twitter and on the "Dark Web" because he is consistently brilliant. I found this video on Weinstein's Twitter feed. I didn't quite know what to expect if you put Eric in the same room as Ted Cruz, but it was riveting, and I respect Cruz for giving Weinstein lots of space to present ideas that are highly critical of both the left and the right. The resulting conversation was not out of any typical political playbook and it offers promising new ways to conceptualize intransigent national conundrums.

Topics included the abject failure of both political parties. The rise of the Maoists on the Left. The fact that the moderates of the two dominant parties need to jettison their extremes and come together. "WTF happened in 1971?" The fact that "rent-seeking" (the practice by which the source of one's wealth is non-productive) has destroyed national growth; the resulting economic stress is exposing social pathogens that have always been around, but they are now more visible. The modern media as Shakespeare's character of Iago, poisoning our national dialogue at every turn. "Russell Conjugations" (referencing Bertrand Russell). Our failure to practice "Critical Feelings" (as opposed to critical thinking) ("Most of our feelings are not OUR feelings, but feelings that we inherit through daily programming, convincing us that those people that think differently than us are evil." The failures of universities. The lies about immigration that are a cover-up to a scheme to exchange citizenship for free university labor. That a successful national response to COVID-19 should have been a "layup," and what this failure says about us (our entire leadership class of both parties is "unworkable").

[Ted Cruz]: How do we get from Othello to midsummer night's dream?

[Eric Weinstein]:

The key issue is that we have to start talking about our own failures. What I hope you've heard is that I'm willing to call out the Left, the right, and the libertarian. The libertarian problem is that it doesn't work to pretend that we're all atomistic. We see that with respect to contagion and masks and the like. Arnold Kling has this beautiful description. He says that you have three Groups: progressives conservatives and Libertarians. Libertarians are animated principally by hating coercion, progressives are animated principally by hating oppression, and conservatives are principally animated by needless loss of hard-won traditions and gains over past generations. The answer is that any sensible person should want to make sure that they're optimizing among the three, and not to become part of a simplistic situation whereby they so hate coercion or so hate oppression that they lose sight of the entire picture and therefore lose the plot of the American Project.

Continue ReadingSenator Ted Cruz Invites Eric Weinstein to Diagnose the United States