September 2007
Steven Pinker is a gutsy fellow. The
Montreal-born psychologist and author was one of the first important
intellectuals to defend Harvard University president Lawrence Summers for
suggesting differences in innate aptitude might explain why few women are top
scientists and mathematicians.
It’s true that few women attain levels of extreme achievement in math and
physics — “extreme achievement” being the sort of thing that earns
international prizes — and Mr. Summers was merely speculating whether social
conditioning alone explains the phenomenon.
Or so it seemed. In fact, he was challenging the sacred liberal principle of a
shared humanity, the belief we are all equal, and for that he was forced to step
down as Harvard president. Liberalism is the official religion in elite
universities, and fellow academics denounced Mr. Summers thereby demonstrating
their own allegiance to that religion. But not Steven Pinker, himself a Harvard
professor. Based on his work as an experimental psychologist, he had suspicions
about innate differences in male and female cognition. The more fundamental
point was that scientists have the right to ask the question. As he put it, the
degree to which sex differences in mathematical ability “originate in biology
must be determined by research, not fatwa.”
Mr. Pinker had long been identified as a left-leaning intellectual — he was for
years a colleague of Noam Chomsky — but suddenly there was fear that, as they
used to say in the Politburo, he might no longer be reliable.
Indeed. “Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average,
than white men?” This attention-grabbing question is one of a handful with which
Mr. Pinker begins a recently published essay titled, In defense of dangerous
ideas.
Other “dangerous” questions Mr. Pinker raises include: Is the average
intelligence of western countries declining because low I.Q. people have more
children than high I.Q. people? Do most victims of sexual abuse suffer no
lifelong damage? Does abortion lower crime rates because it reduces the number
of children born into poor environments, where they would grow up to become
criminals?
Mr. Pinker doesn’t offer answers. He’s defending the right to ask. More, he’s
arguing that it is important to ask. His essay is a compelling argument for the
lifting of taboos. Now taboos serve an important function. You don’t hit your
parents or burn the flag, because doing so would weaken the family and state,
and if those collapse than so does society.
Mr. Pinker knows this, which is why he distinguishes between the role of taboos
in personal and public life. He concedes that in our personal lives it makes
sense to avoid questioning certain underlying principles. We love our children
and parents, and are loyal to our communities, because — well, just because.
But on matters of public inquiry and public policy, he argues, there ought to be
few untouchable subjects. I.Q. differences among racial groups is one topic
around which respectable scientists have circled cautiously, darting in for a
look before pulling back. The biological root of homosexuality is another. An
increasing number of scientists believe the squeamishness of non-scientists is
insufficient reason to prohibit research into these areas.
Mr. Pinker’s defence of dangerous ideas is mostly persuasive, but there remains
the issue of how one defines an idea. Does advocating genocide constitute an
“idea”? Mr. Pinker tries to protect himself by excluding from his category of
dangerous ideas “outright lies,” “deceptive propaganda,” and “theories from
malevolent crackpots.” Yet one can imagine arguments for the extermination of
certain groups — the disabled and the infirm, say — that are based neither on
lies nor propaganda. And the people making such arguments need not harbour
malevolence.
In primitive societies, taboos often had the effect of retarding progress. We
see this still today. Cultures where it is taboo for women to be seen in public
suffer economically and in other ways, because the talents of half the
population go untapped.
But
have modern societies evolved to the point where there is little need for shared
taboos, the kind that inhibit public discussion of the pros and cons of say,
exterminating the mentally disabled? Mr. Pinker suggests we can handle just
about any idea without damaging the moral order, but let’s be careful not to
overestimate just how civilized we are.
Leonard Stern is the Citizen’s Editorial Pages Editor.
The Ottawa Citizen, Sunday, August 12, 2007.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
