Why are the liberals anti-science about the heredibility and biology of IQ, and how IQ scores affect socioeconomic outcomes? The left’s approach to poverty, academic underachievement and crime isn’t based on science and empiricism, but wishful thinking in the hope that by throwing enough tax payer dollars at the problem with wasteful social programs, the achievement gap, which is really is an IQ gap, can be narrowed. The libs become creationists when confronted with the biological realities that conflict with their distorted worldview – a view that everyone is born equal, and the role of the state is to create and enforce equal outcomes, throwing good at the bad, when the optimal policy is to to allocate more money for the cognitively exceptional. Everyone is worthy of salvation, and if some people fall between the cracks, it’s the fault of rich, greedy people – not bad genes. And even the libs who do knowledgeable that some people are born smarter than others, they go to great lengths to try to turn this gift (high IQ) into a handicap or deficiency, as if there is some cosmic arbiter that requires that strength in one area (intelligence) be offset by weakness in another (morality or social skills, for example). It’s like a person who has an IQ of 130 is just as irrational and dumb as everyone else, according to the left. Because we all evolved from apes, we must all be as irrational as one, too. The’s not much different from the creationists who say because we’re all God’s children, all life is precious and no one is better than anyone else – it’s just that Darwin assumes the role of Jesus or God.
To the creationist left, the heretics are those who merely notice things that go against the liberal egalitarian, blank slate orthodoxy. Even other liberals are not immune either and risk excommunication for stepping out of line. A recent example is Larry Summers being tarred and feathered by ‘tolerant, pro-science, open-minded’ left for suggesting that women are underrepresented in STEM fields due to a lack of cognitive capacity at the high-end, a assertion corroborated by actual science that shows that female IQ scores have less variance than males, resulting in fewer genius scores.
A second example is Seven Levitt, who was pilloried by the left for proposing that abortion can reduce crime, implying that that biology and crime are linked, as much as the left wishes that everyone is a blank slate and if some people are violent it’s rich people’s fault for making them violent, not genes. Same for global warming, in which the left creates a straw man. It’s not that Republicans deny warming; they are skeptical that there is sufficient evidence to make a hermetic case in favor of man-made global warming. The left would lose interest if they could not find a way to link warming with greedy capitalists.
The church of liberalism attacked James Watson,a Nobel Prize winning scientist, for making some comments (that are scientifically backed) about race and IQ. Same for Charles Murray, a social scientist, for his books that posit a link – based on empirical data – between IQ, different groups of people, and socioeconomic outcomes.
Silicon Valley and gamers are now in the left’s cross hairs. The good news is pretty much no one is on Anita Sarkeesian’s side except the sows who write for Salon. You go on Reddit and 4chan, for example, and you see the sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of gamers and game designers. As stocks, Bay Area real estate and web 2.0 valuations go to the moon, Silicon Valley, Wall St. and the forces of biological determinism are slapping the libs across the face. The left loses again. Game Over.