Misframed Lenses, Two Badly Misapplied Theories.
How is Social Darwinism Similar to The Blank Slate? What can we learn from their history?
When Albert Einstein was working on his theory of gravity and general relativity, he didn’t have all the mathematical tools he needed. He turned to a friend, Marcel Grossman, who showed Einstein such mathematical tools such as Riemannian geometry, absolute differential calculus, and tensor theory. Einstein was able to take these mathematical theories and apply them to his ideas, thus allowing him to prove and provide a mathematical framework for his theory of general relativity and gravity. Such cross-pollination between scientific fields is often extremely useful, and is necessary for our understanding of the universe to continue to grow.
This has its limits, however. One of the problems can be when someone who does not understand a theory properly misapplies it, or a surface-level understanding of it, to concepts in a different field. The gloss of scientific respectability, of being based on science, has lent credibility to many a dubious idea. Some examples include homeopathy, which its practitioners have claimed is based on quantum mechanics.1 This also includes ideas such as the Blish Lock, the idea that the coefficient of friction between dissimilar metals would increase under pressure. It doesn’t, but luckily the Thompson submachine gun was overengineered enough that the failure of the theory didn’t cause catastrophic failure of the bronze part in question, and thus injury to the users.
One way in which a theory can be misapplied is when it jumps from a hard-science field to a social-science field, or when an idea which is necessary in a legal or moral field is applied to a social or hard science area. I will be discussing two different examples of this here, and looking at how the lenses that these theories provide have been misapplied, one in the past, and one which is currently happening.
Let’s start with the past, and the misapplication of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
Social Darwinism
Charles Darwin created one of the most important theories in the history of biology; right up there with Cell theory and DNA. His theory would have been stronger if he knew enough German to read the paper written by a certain Austrian monk that was in the archives of the Royal Society at the time. It was, however, revolutionary, and it is one of the foundations of modern biology, medicine, and various topics in psychology, sociology, and so on and so forth.
It did however, get badly misapplied in certain places. For example, people used it as a version of the Prosperity Gospel, where wealth and cultural advancement was used to determine whether a group was ‘better’ and thus ‘more fit.’ Those who were more fit according to this measurement were supposed to rule over their lessers. This is one of the framings that became part of Social Darwinism, which sought not only prop up one group over another due to current prosperity, but to prop up races and cultures as well. Not only this, but it justified poor treatment of the poor, because obviously the poor inherited their poor money management sense. Education, for some reason, was not considered as a method to rectify ignorance. 2
This gets the Theory of Evolution wrong in a number of ways, and the follow-up to it, which included a great deal of eugenics, tainted it badly, because most people who don’t understand evolution have trouble telling a good evolutionary argument from a Social Darwinist type of argument. It also serves as a way to smear a good argument that one wishes to discredit.
There currently is a great deal of controversy about applying Darwin to human behavior, and this may be traced to the results of Social Darwinism, and the complete misapplication of the theory. Some scientists use Evolution frequently in their arguments, in psychology, in medicine, in sociology, but in the public sphere their arguments are often dismissed as racism or bigotry, however good the evidence might be.3 My own background is in molecular and neurobiology, and to me, dismissing or disbelieving Evolution is like a carpenter dismissing or disbelieving a hammer. It only works until you hit your thumb. Unfortunately, we seem to be in the process of doing so in a societal manner, and this is largely due to our next topic.
Tabula Rasa - The Blank Slate
The Blank Slate, or Blank Slate thinking, is the idea that we are born with no preconceptions, no instincts, no pre-programming about the world. We are blank slates, and therefore whatever we do, however we turn out, is solely and wholly due to environment, particularly Society. This idea is often propagated by people who are quite willing to believe in evolution of other species, and some are willing to admit to evolution in human beings - evolution of everything below the neck, at least. The brain, human behavior, human thought and psychology, those are all sacrosanct and may not be touched, much as Pope John Paul apparently told physicists about the Big Bang. The logical inconsistency of this view should be obvious. Furthermore, it is incorrect, and I am not going to bother listing the data that show it incorrect, as I don’t have all year. Suffice it to say that there are many decades of evidence proving evolution to be a useful tool to analyze the human brain, behavior, and thinking. 4
The Tabula Rasa, however, is a very useful tool in the correct context. Just as Evolution is extremely useful in the biological context, a blank slate is an extremely useful presumption in moral, ethical, and legal thinking. For example, we do not lock up or execute the children of murderers, or the children of abusive parents. We often work on helping them to get past their parents’ acts.
Even more important is the principle (However flawed it has proven in practice) that all people are created equal, and are valued equally. The children of the poor and the children of the rich are bound by and must obey the same laws, at least in principle, and a rich child abusing a poor one is as bad as a poor abusing a rich one. Furthermore, a rich person, in a democracy, gets one vote, as does a poor one. As I mentioned above, this can and does get abused, as the wealthy can hire excellent lawyers and accountants, but it does set the expectation, and if enough of the little people get together, they can make it stick. This has been much of the power of populism, from The Dragon of Wantley to the whole Robin Hood Short-selling mess.
The problem with the Blank Slate is when it is misapplied to try to justify social engineering and equity mindsets. The social sciences are full of this sort of thinking, to the point where people with social science PhDs cannot understand an evolutionary argument, or simply dismiss it out of hand as false. Helen Lewis is a great example of this with her interview of Jordan Peterson. She either cannot understand how evolution can apply in the way that he is saying, or cannot accept the argument as having any validity. Her bias is very clear, and she is not the only one.
One book I have looked at, and in fact am following up on, is a book called Strange Rites, by Tara Isabella Burton. The book is quite good until you get to the last few chapters, where she completely dissolves. The author has a doctorate in Theology from Trinity College in Oxford, and is quite intelligent. However, she is unable to understand the so-called ‘atavists’ that she calls right-wing, and does a frankly terrible attempt at dissecting their thinking.5 Again, a social scientist, willing and able to use data and craft rational arguments within her paradigm, but totally unable or unwilling to consider that humans evolved, and so did our behavior, and our thought, and our society. All are influenced by evolution, and are based on the genes that were successful in being passed on.
Synthesis or Separation?
So what do those two theories teach us?
Before we start, one might consider the following question: What is the moral use of science?
My personal answer is none. The moment science attempts to frame itself in terms of a moral narrative, in terms of finding a desired course of action, or what ‘should’ be done, it fails. That is what ethics, law, and politics are for. The moment you try to put a moral narrative into a scientific experiment, you bias it, both in the types of questions you are capable of asking, and in the types of answers you are willing to accept. That there should be morality in the methods of science is inarguable. Not finding your answer by torturing human beings, risking their lives without informed consent, and so on, is part of the Nuremberg code, and for good reason. But trying to moralize the purpose of science ruins it as a science.
So I think the solution must involve a simple question. What type of question is this lens, this theory, designed to answer or analyze?
If it is a moral question, then it cannot be used to tell us what we know, or dictate what we may think about, study, or inquire into. It may not dictate to scientists, or insert itself into science in an attempt to establish itself as fact. If it does, we must rebut it, vigorously, and extremely firmly.
If the question is a scientific one, about establishing facts about the world we live in, then morality needs to bow out. The morality must come later, when we INTERPRET the facts. In fact, when people are telling us to “just listen to the science” we must become extremely suspicious. What they are telling us is the following:
We have collected a set of facts, and have put a moral interpretation on them.
No other set of facts is allowed, especially if they lead to a different moral interpretation.
If you question our facts, you are questioning our moral interpretation.
If you question our moral interpretation, you are morally opposed to us, and since we are obviously good, you are obviously evil.
Prepare to be destroyed.
This is true no matter if you are a distraught teenager wailing about climate change or a politician dictating extreme measures during a pandemic. The science gives us facts, but you, the person, are dictating their moral directive, and the actions that follow on those facts. You are doing so by balancing (or failing to balance) public safety and health, the economy, necessary public services, people’s rights, and so on and so forth. This is a moral and ethical choice, and often a political choice, and you are responsible for whatever your choice is. You may not try to wave the science as a smokescreen. Science is not moral, and morality cannot dictate what is true in science. The two must remain separate.
Broader Concerns
In the final analysis, this is about more than two theories, two lenses that we use to view the world. This is about the broader applicability of theories, of lenses, and of models. We must always be aware of the limitations of the models we choose. For example, a data-driven scientific lens can give an excellent view of a problem, and may help understanding, but may be too complex to allow for quick action. A psychotherapeutic lens can be excellent for helping a person resolve personal difficulties, by allowing them a framework for internal reflection and rectification. It may be useless in determining what factually happened to cause those difficulties, because it is very narrative driven and relies on a person’s personal story about what went wrong. A theological lens may be a way for a person who is drifting and lost to anchor their identity, to find a purpose in life. It drives them to action, but again may not be useful for analysis, because the analysis is less important than the belief and the actions in line with that belief. An economic lens like Marx and Engels used works extremely well until it runs into human behavior, as the many failed Communist states,and their mass graves remind us.
So when you analyze the world, always remind yourself that a lens is only good for specific uses. If you want to understand and explain a complex and constantly-changing world, you will need to seek out and understand many theories and ideas. When you run into a problem that your primary models cannot deal with, seek out others that work to allow you to hit your target.
And when you fail, (because you are, after all, only human) remember to stand up again, renew your aim, and press on. Human persistence in the face of adversity is one of the oldest models there is.
Until next time,
Hamartic
Spoiler alert, it is based on Victorian era medical ideas and is complete quackery, much like psychic surgery.
Some might find epigenetics a way to justify this stance, because obviously we CAN inherit some things from our ancestors’ immediate circumstances, like famine, according to the animal studies, which causes changes in parenting in the children of rats. This still doesn’t deal with the role of education, proper diet, and the like in advancing society. For one thing, if your ancestors were lousy parents or lived during a famine, and passed certain traits on to you because of that, through methylation or acetylation of your DNA, that doesn’t mean that proper diet and good parenting by YOU will pass on the same methylation and acetylation. It also doesn’t mean that socialization and education don’t have an effect on your parenting skills or that they cannot override aspects of the epigenetic modifications. Nature is extremely important, but we forget Nurture at our peril.
As a note, there are also people, most notably in the MGTOW sphere and the redpill sphere, who use evolution as well, especially when talking about the mating drives of males vs females. This has been well characterized, and they are largely correct in the research they cite, though they tend to be way too absolutist in their framing. As we will discuss later in this essay, research and data don’t prescribe the actions that you take. That is a moral choice of the individual who interprets the data and chooses their response to it. Serious discussion might be useful between opposing groups here, because the actions they are taking and recommending in response to these ideas may not be the best ways to go about functioning in a rapidly restructuring society, especially if what you want is the long-term good of the society. The short-term good of the group seems to be more important here. Much of the discussion is extremely antagonistic, because one side especially is bent on denigrating the other, though the other isn’t wholly blameless. Still, some people are at least trying to have the discussion, so kudos to them for that attempt.
To see some of the sources I could cite, check out The Blank Slate, which is full of them.
Among the problems she runs into in the last few chapters is that she labels those who think in evolutionary terms as ‘atavists.’ This lumps Richard Dawkins in with Jordan Peterson, and with me, since I have similar training, though not so illustrious a pedigree. She also badly miscaricatures (I will not dignify her attempt as a misunderstanding) those she labels as atavists, especially since she seems to consider them all right-wing. That her caricature includes such luminaries as Dawkins and Bret Weinstein, and many other professors I know who are firmly on the left (Many are outright progressives) totally escapes her. I don’t think Jordan Peterson is right-wing either, from what I know of his political beliefs. The rest of the groups she is trying to discuss are not honestly described either, to put it charitably.