Culture

How Belief In Equality Destroys Intellect, Ruins Thought & Leads To Madness

There is a peer-reviewed paper, with about sixty authors, almost all female, all ensconced comfortably in prominent Western academic institutions, ululating on the relative dearth of females in “psychological science.” (I first learned of this paper from Steve Sailer.)

The paper is “The Future of Women in Psychological Science“, and is in the field’s top journal. Before discussing how remarkable an artifact this document is, it is important to understand that my post describes academic psychology, and not psychology per se.

Academic psychology is a subset of real psychology, but with more banality, ephemera, and outright enforced mandatory quackery than real psychology. Think gender “transition” theory. Certainly academics can do good and useful psychology, but this is becoming increasingly unlikely. If at this late date you still need proof of that claim, it is had by this paper itself, which is academic psychology at its purest.

All we need is the last sentence of the paper: “As a field committed to the science of equality, psychology has the opportunity to lead other disciplines in how best to create and maintain a culture of inclusion.”

That there is no “science of equality” I take to be obvious. Because Equality does not and cannot exist. I do not mean equality in human and spiritual nature and the like, which is true and obvious. I mean there is no Equality between individuals in ability to do academic psychology. There is no Equality is men being able to be women, and vice versa. There is no Equality in ability to do math. There is no Equality in ability to do anything. Committing to Equality thus commits to what does not and cannot exist, and so is insane.

There has never, not anywhere, been observations that can be reconciled to the theory of Equality. There thus can be no science of Equality, because it cannot be, and hasn’t been, measured. Individuals differ in ability, and that is that. If you want to call that a science, you may, but this exhausts the subject, unless the urge to quantify strikes you, as it too often does, then differences may be, at times, quantified. However, given human abilities can only be quantified only imperfectly, if at all, great over-certainties will be generated if one is not cautious.

Now there may or may not in any group, like academic psychologists, be equal numbers of people sharing politically interesting characteristics, like sex or enjoyment of sodomy. But this it not Equality, because we have already observed, throughout all history and all situations that individuals differ in abilities. Equality is therefore false. All the observation would mean is that sex and sodomy enjoyment are irrelevant to the ability to do academic psychology—or whatever activity.

This observation of equal numbers would certainly not prove Equality, because we already know it is false. There is thus nothing to be gained scientifically by tracking these politically important characteristics. Yet they are tracked, but not because of science.

The mania for Equality is like this. One day, it is noticed that sock colors are not proportionately represented among academic psychologists. “We must do better” speeches are immediately heard. Students refuse assignments until the “outrage” of missing argyles is corrected.

A professor says he doesn’t see sock color and is made to recant. Ass. Deans embedded in Diversity Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) departments mandate training to “raising awareness” of sock color. Academic departments preferentially hire sock colors that were found to be lacking in number, etc. Papers, like ours above, saying “We must DIE together” appear.

Until, lo, one bright and glorious morn, it is discovered sock color is now proportionately distributed in academic departments.

Then…what? The impediments (somebody better laugh at this) to sock color Equality having been removed, Academic psychology would improve? Certainly not, because it is absurd to suggest sock color is relevant to ability.

After all that angst, moaning, cowardice, “outrage”, and efforts spent, nothing would change in academic psychology. Except that a permanent bureaucracy to track “disparities” is created, one that would instantly hunt for the next moral panic to justify increasing it budget.

It’s worse than this. Suppose orange sock color was indeed badly “underrepresented” before the mania. After enforced Affirmative Actions, orange sock color is now far over-represented in academic departments, much in excess of it rates in the populace. This imbalance will be called “Equality”, too, because it punishes traditional sock colors and “redresses” historical imbalances.

In the end, still, academic psychology, besides becoming even more politicized, and therefore the field being harmed and its intellectual products accordingly suffering, has gained nothing. Because it is still absurd that sock color has anything to do with ability.

The mania for Equality has wrought only harm.

We’re still not finished. Because there may be some politically important characteristics that are, for whatever reasons, related to ability to do academic psychology. Then to mandate equal numbers again causes the field harm. One, because of the creation of the political bureaucracy.

Two, because those who are better at the ability but who are “over-represented” because of their characteristic (which is relevant) are turned away. Because the temptation to hire the under- and un-qualified in the under-represented groups will be too great to be resisted. The quotas must be filled.

The only possible good to the field can come at those times in which a characteristic is important, but when that characteristic has been quashed by outside forces, its numbers kept artificially low. Removing the restraints allows more of those possessing the relevant characteristic to enter the field, and it improves. If this can be done without the creation of a bureaucracy to manage it, overall quality can rise.

But then this disproves Equality! We start with the admission of inequality. We start by saying, for instance, sex is relevant to the practice of academic psychology. We cannot then conclude that Equality between the sexes holds. You then have the spectacle of psychologists saying “The sexes are equal in ability, but women are necessary.” Insanity.

No matter what, then, belief in Equality weakens, retards, destroys. Nothing good can come from its pursuit. It either corrupts the field upon which it is foisted, or it rots the minds of those who preach it.

We still haven’t covered the juicier bits of this paper, including the admission that now in the lower ranks females outnumber men, the forced “inclusion” of references (reaching hilarity), the claim that “Gender identity can be nonbinary”, all of which prove the madness of academics beyond dispute. We might get to these another day. This is enough for now.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.

Categories: Culture

13 replies »

  1. Beautifully argued Mr B. Especially appreciate the logic behind an over representation of a class of individuals due to their ability rather than irrelevant traits being discriminated against because they have ability.

  2. Leftism is quite practically defined as the abject denial, nay rejection, of the existence of reality.

    Psychology has always, from the very beginning, been the home of nutjobs, crazies, and deviants. It has so little to do with actual science that the nearly accidental overlap can only be seen through a microscope.

  3. I did buy your book.
    But “arguing” against the regime doesn’t do any good.
    It is pointless and even dangerous to behave forthrightly with those who are insincere.
    Arguing, in the sense we intend here, only makes sense if both parties want to find the truth.

  4. Just for the record I wear nothing but dark blue socks but nobody ever seems to
    notice them. The DIE departments are a lot like the creation of Homeland
    Security after 911 to ‘keep us safe’ and now to police our thoughts. Check out
    this hilarious memo apparently there’s some dissention in the ranks.

    DHS Releases Report on Internal Review of Domestic Violent Extremism
    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/03/11/dhs-releases-report-internal-review-domestic-violent-extremism

  5. >it is absurd to suggest sock color is relevant to ability.

    But we know that this is not true. Some sock colors are statistically significantly less able in sciences, even in the very soft science of psychology.

  6. I have noticed in my sampling of scientists that they tend to wear novelty or brightly colored socks with business attire more often than the average Joe does. More research is needed in this area.

  7. From the DHS memo linked by Incitadus above:

    -provided $180 million in funding to support target hardening and other physical security enhancements to non-profit organizations at high risk of terrorist attack through DHS’s?Nonprofit Security Grant Program for which Secretary Mayorkas has called for a significant increase in funding;
    -increased efforts to better identify and evaluate mis- dis- and mal-information?(MDM) with a homeland security nexus, including false or misleading conspiracy theories spread on social media and other online platforms that endorse violence

    Govt is just a jobs program, with funds doled out on a partisan basis to special interest voting constituencies. The mind boggles.

  8. The Cast of “No Country for Old Men” in the 2007 film adaptation of Colmac McCarthy’s novel of the same name, were graced with a number of fabulous lines. For instance: “The first time I ever saw my future son in law, two words came to my mind at the same time, and those two words were NO and GOOD”. But, apropos this article by Briggs, the stand-out lines were spoken by Josh Brolin’s lead character CONCERNING SOCKS (second encounter with the owner of a Western Wear Clothing store) || Owner: “White is all I carry”. Brolin: “White is all I wear”. ||

    No Country for Old Men
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477348/

    More earnestly, a recurring “Equalitism” theme is redressing “inequalities of the past”. In a Nutshell: {If equality was once denied – inducing some reciprocal social inequality today merely corrects and balances this injustice (for which WE stand collectively responsible, eternally)}. So, distilling that, what these campaigners for equality are really all about is permanent (endless) recompense thinly veiled as “progress” – OR – PROGRESS itself substituting for human ACCOMPLISHMENT ~ A Mere Fruit of Privilege. “Ululating” ~ indeed.

  9. This is all so confusing. Sock color reassignment transition surgery (SCATS) is relatively minor and can be done at home under no, or local, anesthesia (i.e., a cup of coffee). And it is easy to perform SCATS multiple times with no accumulation of ill effects, so one can keep their sock-color-quota-based job as the quotas change over time simply by undergoing SCATS. Upon further reflection, SCATS seems totally unnecessary anyway, a person can just identify as wearing a different sock color, and whether or not a person has actually undergone SCATS is private information protected by hipaa privacy rules.

    If a person can identify however they please, and no one is allowed to question a transition in any way, isn’t this a short-cut to achieving all the diversity that liberals demand? Or perhaps I am missing some important detail? The liberal mind is a strange and mysterious thing to me; if only I were smarter and more perceptive, perhaps I could understand how all their rules and exceptions work. (They do have rules, right? They wouldn’t be making it up as they go along, would they?)

    Hagfish: devastating display of the power of brevity!

  10. It’s also anti- Christian. Or at least anti-Catholic.

    God has a place for each of us in Life. Each as valuable as the next in His infinite goodness and in His image.

    Modernists attack of neighborly feelings for each other seeding doubt that one’s place is equal to any other man or woman. Our church long ago a) was infiltrated by secularists of various modern and humanist philosophies and b) obviously rolled over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.