Introduction
The Orthodoxy
The main idea of the orthodoxy in social sciences is about human equality, focusing on the concept of sameness. This means that, ideally, people from all groups—like different genders, races, and social classes—should have similar life outcomes. While individuals may have different abilities, the orthodoxy claims that groups do not have natural differences in those abilities, except for obvious traits like height and skin color.
This idea started a long time ago during the Enlightenment and became popular when leading thinkers rejected the idea that biology affects social differences. The movement gained momentum in the 1960s with the civil rights movement and feminism, claiming that problems like racism and sexism lead to unfair inequalities.
Three key beliefs of the orthodoxy are that gender is a social construct, race is a social construct, and that social class comes from privilege. Many university professors recognize that biology plays a role in these issues, but they often do not talk about it because they fear backlash from their peers. This fear creates an environment where people feel they cannot freely discuss important ideas about the connection between biology and society. As a result, it can harm the overall integrity of academic research and open discussion.
Archaeological Digs
Some scholars are merging biology with societal studies, particularly through the work of geneticists and neuroscientists, challenging established ideas about human differences. As knowledge of genetics and the brain grows, it may undermine current beliefs about sameness, much like Galileo's findings did for Aristotelian physics. The author compares studying gender, race, and class to an archaeological dig. Gender research is advanced, with significant findings; race research is just starting to uncover important areas; and class research has been mostly completed, with ongoing analysis using new tools.
Why Me?
The writing explains why it's important to look into genetics and neuroscience. It suggests that people who are not specialists can explain complex ideas better than experts, who may know too much. The purpose is to share clear insights about new discoveries that are exciting, rather than creating fear. The focus is on findings that most experts agree on, and tentative ideas are called out to avoid any misunderstandings.
It also discusses evolutionary psychology, which helps understand differences between genders and human populations. However, this field often faces criticism, so including it could lead to unnecessary arguments. Ten propositions are shared, showing that many personality traits and abilities are influenced more by genetics than by the environment. These propositions point out that differences based on race and ethnicity have genetic roots, and they challenge the belief that outside actions can significantly change personality and abilities. The aim is to provide a strong base for future discussions in a field that is continually changing.
How the Phrase Cognitive Repertoires Is Used Throughout the Rest of the Book
Cognitive repertoires are the differences in personality, abilities, and social behavior that people have. Abilities cover various skills, including intelligence, emotional intelligence, and how well people interact with others. These repertoires should not be seen as better or worse; their value depends on the situation, like what’s needed for different jobs. It’s also important to understand that even though groups of people may have genetic differences, these do not mean one group is better or worse than another, and do not affect a person's worth or dignity.
The Orthodoxy
The main idea of the orthodoxy in social sciences is about human equality, focusing on the concept of sameness. This means that, ideally, people from all groups—like different genders, races, and social classes—should have similar life outcomes. While individuals may have different abilities, the orthodoxy claims that groups do not have natural differences in those abilities, except for obvious traits like height and skin color.
This idea started a long time ago during the Enlightenment and became popular when leading thinkers rejected the idea that biology affects social differences. The movement gained momentum in the 1960s with the civil rights movement and feminism, claiming that problems like racism and sexism lead to unfair inequalities.
Three key beliefs of the orthodoxy are that gender is a social construct, race is a social construct, and that social class comes from privilege. Many university professors recognize that biology plays a role in these issues, but they often do not talk about it because they fear backlash from their peers. This fear creates an environment where people feel they cannot freely discuss important ideas about the connection between biology and society. As a result, it can harm the overall integrity of academic research and open discussion.
Archaeological Digs
Some scholars are merging biology with societal studies, particularly through the work of geneticists and neuroscientists, challenging established ideas about human differences. As knowledge of genetics and the brain grows, it may undermine current beliefs about sameness, much like Galileo's findings did for Aristotelian physics. The author compares studying gender, race, and class to an archaeological dig. Gender research is advanced, with significant findings; race research is just starting to uncover important areas; and class research has been mostly completed, with ongoing analysis using new tools.
Why Me?
The writing explains why it's important to look into genetics and neuroscience. It suggests that people who are not specialists can explain complex ideas better than experts, who may know too much. The purpose is to share clear insights about new discoveries that are exciting, rather than creating fear. The focus is on findings that most experts agree on, and tentative ideas are called out to avoid any misunderstandings.
It also discusses evolutionary psychology, which helps understand differences between genders and human populations. However, this field often faces criticism, so including it could lead to unnecessary arguments. Ten propositions are shared, showing that many personality traits and abilities are influenced more by genetics than by the environment. These propositions point out that differences based on race and ethnicity have genetic roots, and they challenge the belief that outside actions can significantly change personality and abilities. The aim is to provide a strong base for future discussions in a field that is continually changing.
How the Phrase Cognitive Repertoires Is Used Throughout the Rest of the Book
Cognitive repertoires are the differences in personality, abilities, and social behavior that people have. Abilities cover various skills, including intelligence, emotional intelligence, and how well people interact with others. These repertoires should not be seen as better or worse; their value depends on the situation, like what’s needed for different jobs. It’s also important to understand that even though groups of people may have genetic differences, these do not mean one group is better or worse than another, and do not affect a person's worth or dignity.