              |
|
Politically
Correct Fanatics
Their denial of patterns and
genetics
By
Winston
Wu
Introduction
You may
be reading this
because you've made one or some of the following politically correct
statements:
1. "Not all
of them
are like that. It depends on the individual.
You generalize or
stereotype."
2. "There is
good
and bad (or anything being contrasted) everywhere."
3.
"Stereotypes and
generalizations are bad, harmful, and wrong."
4. "I know
this
person or that who
doesn't fit your
generalization."
5. "People
are the
same everywhere you go." or "We are all unique individuals, so it is
wrong and inaccurate to make generalizations or stereotypes." (a
seeming contradiction)
The "politically
correct" crowd today is imbued with a mentality that denies
any
sort
of patterns in people, and denies the whole science of genetics, seems
prevalent among many people today, especially in the
US. Though
odd and
illogical, it has spread widely and in various degrees among
the
world's
populations into popular thought today. For some reason, these
people, in
their idealistic cause to appease and unify the people of the
world with
political correctness, are willing to deny facts and
reality to
support
their politically correct beliefs. They seem to care more about
political correctness than accuracy. It's like a religion to
them. They
seem inclined to ignore all differences in
people, in
order to unify all, get agreement from all, and offend
none. Thus, in effect,
when it comes to choosing between truth and political correctness, they
choose
the latter. For terminology purposes, we will call these kinds
of
people
"PC fanatics".
These PC fanatics,
however, are
tedious to debate, because they bring up the same protests over and
over again
(such as the statements above) and even when you point out why they're
wrong,
getting them to admit it sometimes too, they still bring up the same
points
again later. It becomes tedious and repetitive. I've gone
through that with them countless times. Therefore,
I've
written this article to knock some sense into them, and to save me time
from
having to repeat the same arguments to them over and over
again.
I cut to the chase and tell it like it is.
PC
fanatics' denial
of patterns among people
PC
fanatics are people who are religiously against
defining
or labeling people in any way. They
usually
have no problem with labeling
objects and things, but when it comes to people, they seem to
take it personally and act like you've broken some sacred
rule. Any
observation of differences
or patterns in people is
immediately
labeled as "generalizing" or "stereotyping",
and rebuked by one of the five PC statements above. They
use straw
man arguments
by
claiming that such observations are
“generalizations” and
“stereotypes”. There are so many PC
fanatics, especially among Westernized liberals. As such, I find that
when I make an observation about people or cultures, I am put between a
rock and a hard place, because on the one hand, PC fanatics and
liberals will take offense and attack me for it. But on the other, if I
say that there are no group differences and that people are all the
same, that would obviously be a false statement. Thus I am forced to
choose between lying and offending them.
The fact of the matter is, patterns and differences in people do exist. Contrary to what PC fanatics insinuate, people who make observations about others are never claiming that ALL people in that group are like that. They are merely reporting and defining general PATTERNS in people based on their experiences, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Patterns exist, even in people, so it is illogical for PC fanatics to constantly deny them. Scientists observe and define patterns in people, as well as statisticians, researchers, marketers, businessmen, insurance companies, and even sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, historians, etc. Observing patterns in people is useful in so many ways that are too numerous to even list, adding to one’s understanding of things.
For instance, auto
insurance
companies conclude that young males are higher risk drivers than young
females,
so they set car insurance premiums for young males higher. So
does that
mean that these insurance companies claim that "all" young males are
high risk drivers, as PC fanatics would protest? No, of
course not. It's merely a
statistic that they need to
properly
assess risk and cost, or else the business would go
belly-up. If
only PC
fanatics would get that.
It
is true that we
are all individuals (especially in
Things
and people are NOT in the
same percentages everywhere.
For
instance, in
Those are all
observable patterns
that the most simple and ordinary person could observe and agree
with. In
addition, there are an endless number of contrasts you could make
between
cultures, mentalities, lifestyles, behaviors, etc. among people of
different
nations and geographic regions. None of them claim that "all"
members of a group or category fit these tendencies.
Therefore,
to say
“not all are like that” is both useless and
irrelevant.
It is merely a false straw
man argument;
in other words, putting words into their mouth that they never said in
order to
knock it down easily.
PC fanatics like to point out that stereotypes and generalizations hurt people by misjudging them, and they add that people’s behaviors cannot be categorized or formulized. They are right in that sense. Trying to predict people’s behaviors by putting them into formulas often fails, even when done by the world’s top experts. However, one who observes and defines patterns in others does not necessarily generalize or stereotype, for he/she does not claim absoluteness.
Let’s give the simplest example to illustrate what I mean. Suppose I saw eight X’s and two O’s fall into a grid. Now, it would be fair for me to honestly report that there are eight X’s and two O’s. And I could logically predict that when the next character falls into the grid, there will be an 80 percent chance it will be an X and a 20 percent chance it will be an O. Now that is not stereotyping or generalizing. It is merely reporting the pattern observed. One who does this can still keep an open mind and know that he/she could be wrong. It’s as simple as that. But there is no need to try to pretend that there are an equal number of X’s and O’s or that no pattern exists, just to please the beliefs of PC fanatics and avoid offending their beliefs that patterns don’t exist.
Debunking the 5 PC
statements
Now let’s
dissect each of the five
PC statements with another simple illustration. Here below
you
see two
boxes, A and B. In box A, you see eight + plus symbols and
two *
asterisks, while in Box B, you see seven * asterisks and three + plus
symbols.
Box A
+ + + + + * + + + *
Box B
* * * + * * + + * *
Now, suppose PC
statement # 1
came into the picture: "Not
all of them are like that.
It
depends on the individual.
You generalize or
stereotype."
If
I said that "Box A tends to have pluses in them and
Box B tends to have asterisks" or "Most symbols in Box A are pluses,
and most in Box B are asterisks" and PC fanatics respond by with,
"You can't generalize like that. There are pluses are
asterisks
in
both boxes." or "Not all symbols in Box A are pluses. Not all
symbols in Box B are asterisks." What would that
accomplish?
Those typical PC statements, though true, do NOTHING to refute
the
statements I made, identifying patterns I observed in those two
boxes.
Yet they are presented as a denial or challenge. Again, they
are
both
USELESS and IRRELEVANT. Instead, all they do is create a
false
straw man,
insinuating that the pattern observer claimed that 100 percent all
symbols were
one or the other, when in fact, he/she did no such thing!
Do you see how
trifling silly this
is?
Yet, it's EXACTLY what so
many PC
fanatics do! I've seen and heard it so many times, that I
could
say, "If I had
a dime for everytime
I heard that, I'd be rich."
Let's look at PC
statement #
2: "There
is good and bad (or anything being contrasted)
everywhere."
This again is another
common false
straw man. Though true, it does nothing to refute any
statement
of
observation, and only puts words again into the mouth of the
accused. No
one denies that there is "good" and "bad" everywhere, or
any other qualities being contrated.
That was
never contested. But just because there is "good"
and
"bad" everywhere doesn't mean they are in the same PERCENTAGES
everywhere!
For example, there is
much higher
percentage of scammers, criminals, and thieves in
As in the Box analogy,
if you
applied PC statement # 2 and said, "There are pluses and asterisks in
both
boxes" it does absolutely nothing but falsely accuse the pattern
observer
again.
As for PC statement #
3: "Stereotypes
and generalizations are bad, harmful, and wrong" well
they are
when
PC fanatics make create them and put them into the mouth of those who
are
merely observing patterns they've experienced. In that sense,
the
PC
fanatic is the one stereotyping and generalizing, not the pattern
observer. However, while it is true that stereotypes can be
harmful and
unfairly categorize minorities and genders, that
is
not the issue I am refuting here.
But even regarding
harmful
stereotypes, it’s been said even that, "Every
stereotype is
based on
some grain of truth".
Now for PC statement
# 4: "I
know this person or that who
doesn't fit your generalization."
Again, this does not
refute the
pattern being observed and claimed. Sure everyone knows or
can
find
exceptions to the patterns being identified, and in most cases even the
pattern
observer can. However, a few exceptions does
NOT refute or falsify a general pattern. For example, you can
find a few
people in
And as in the Box
analogy, you
could take PC statement # 4 and point out the minority of pluses or
asterisks
that are the exception to the pattern, but it wouldn't change the
majority
pattern of the symbols in the boxes.
Finally, we come to PC
statement #
5: "People are the
same everywhere you go." or "We are
all unique individuals, so it is wrong and inaccurate to make
generalizations
or stereotypes." (a
seeming contradiction)
The first sentence is
blatantly
false (the composers of the oldies song "Ebony and Ivory" ought to be
ashamed to put that sentence into their lyrics), and anyone could bet
all their
money against it and easily win. Usually though, those who
utter
it are
saying that everywhere you go you can find good and bad
people.
But that
was already addressed in PC statement # 2.
And in regard to the
second
sentence, sure we are all individuals and unique (i.e. no two
fingerprints and
EEG brain waves are exactly alike) but one cannot deny that patterns of
differences exist among people of varying regions, nationalities, or
genders.
Likewise, dogs and cats are
individuals and each has its own quirks.
Though they are not all the
same, there does exist general
patterns of
differences between them (e.g. dogs are more dependent and needy while
cats are
more independent; cats instinctively chase mice and birds while dogs
don’t;
etc.)
Hypocrisy of PC
fanatics
When PC fanatics become defensive, they often resort to sly and ridiculous arguments such as “Have you met everyone in the world to know this?” or “Not all are like that. It depends on who you meet.” The first statement is a classic case of raising the bar to an impossible standard that no one could meet to try to discredit the claim being made.
One does not have to know or meet everyone in the world, over six billion people, in order to honestly report or define patterns in people. Funnily, if I proclaimed to PC fanatics that “most parents would not want their children to be kidnapped” or “most people would prefer not to be shot by a gun”, they somehow mysteriously do not feel the need to resort to this statement. Obviously, PC fanatics are inconsistent in their logic, and highly selective of what they choose to demand proof for and what they don’t. They seem to only use the "you can't generalize or stereotype" accusation when someone identifies a pattern they don't agree with or like, but don't use it when they themselves agree with the described pattern. In a way, this is a double standard, for this type of semi-PC fanatic will demand scientific proof from the one they disagree with, but when they agree with the pattern, then they don't need proof for it, and in fact base it on nothing but their own observations as well.
The second statement ploy is again merely a pure straw man argument, for no one who observes or defines patterns in others is claiming “all are like that” nor is he/she claiming that everyone is the same. So the statement is a moot point that is bred more out of emotion than rationality.
Suggested solution
The best solution seems to be to honestly observe patterns in people, while keeping an open mind that one could be wrong, and that there are always exceptions. That would be the logical view. But it wouldn’t be logical to just pretend that people are the same everywhere, or that patterns don’t exist in people, just to appease the beliefs of PC fanatics. If one observes that men in general tend to be physically stronger than women, that most who use cosmetics tend to be female, that white people tend to be taller than Asian people, or that most of the people who attend psychic fairs in America tend to be women rather than men, etc., then one should have the right and freedom to report such observations honestly, without feeling like they are violating some type of morality imposed by PC fanatics.
After all, since the observant of patterns is never claiming absolutes in his/her definitions, the PC fanatics technically have no case to gripe about. The absolutes seem to only exist in the minds of PC fanatics, not in those who define or observe patterns.
Where there is
disagreement among
those identifying patterns, one should state their opposing experience
or
observation, and try to back it up. In this way, it makes for
much
more constructive discussion or debate. But for God
sake,
please
don't use one of the five PC statements, which serve no purpose other
than
creating false straw mans.
In such cases, those
who disagree
on their experiences and the patterns they observed ought to compare
their
qualifications - namely, a) the vastness of their experiences, b) how
well-traveled they are, and c) the number of people they've known or
met, in
relation to the subject at hand. Those with higher
qualifications
in
these areas ought to be considered more credible, and ought to
be
able to
back it up as well. For example, as it applies to a and b,
someone who's
been to a hundred countries (such exist by the way, for I have met
them) is far
more qualified to make culture comparisons, observing and identifying
patterns
between them, than someone who has never left their own city,
state/province,
or country. And likewise, someone who has lived in a foreign
country for
at least a year, immersing themselves with its culture and people while
living
amongst them, is far more qualified to be stating patterns than the
typical American
who only knows about that country from their media.
Now when you know or
have met many
people who are well traveled, you will notice that patterns
exist
among
their stories and experiences. For example, as a traveler
myself
who has
met many others, here are some common consensuses I've
noticed.
Most
Americans who have been to
PC fanatics'
denial of the
science of genetics
Another feature of PC
fanatics and liberals is
that they seem to deny the existence of genetics
altogether, dismissing
and ignoring an entire branch of science. They have
this
fanatical
belief that everyone is born a blank slate and that their personality,
behavior, characteristics, mindset,
and
beliefs are completely determined by their
environment,
culture, and
how they were raised. In simple terms, in the nature
vs.
nurture
debate, they completely side with nurture. They have little
or no
evidence or sound reasoning to base this on, yet believe it fervently,
even
ignoring all contrary evidence.
This belief is
especially
prevalent in
The truth though, is
that
most of the research
by science in the field
of genetics
and heredity have
concluded that our personalities are
determined about 50/50 by nature and nurture. The evidence,
tested,
observed, and researched for many years, indicate
this. Yet
most PC fanatics believe that it's nearly all
nurture. Perhaps they have a need to believe
that
they are
in control, and despise the notion of being a slave or prisoner to
their genes.
The research which
proves the PC
fanatics wrong,
is well documented.
Most of it
indicates that its
about 50/50. See
the
following:
http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm
http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/socpsy-2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec98/naturenurture_10-20.html
http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/nature_nurture.htm
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3492.php
It is clear that there
is a
genetic or inherited element involved in our personalities,
temperament, and in
what makes us "tick". For example, two siblings can grow up
in
the same families and environment,
yet turn
out to be
totally different in personality and beliefs. Also, studies
have
shown
that fraternal twins who were reared apart tend to still have striking
similarities in personality, habits, choices, etc. some of which are
very
eerie. That strongly favors nature over nurture, for
example.
And, some are born
with phobias
that have no environmental learned cause. For instance, I've
always had a
paralyzing fear of heights, and as a little child was even afraid to go
down
slides in the
playground, whereas other kids had no problem with it. Yet I had
no bad experiences or trauma that
caused
this. I was born like that, and did not learn it. And some are
born with
natural
talents
as well, that aren't learned (e.g. Mozart could play the piano as a
child
without ever having been taught it).
Another consensus
among behavioral
scientists and specialists is that behavior and
habits are
mostly
learned and therefore changeable. That is the good news,
which is
that
undesirable behavior, bad habits or cyclical addictions, can in fact,
be
changed by behavioral modification techniques. However, our
basic
core
personality, who we are, and what makes us tick, usually remains fixed,
only enhanced to varying degrees. Though we or
others may
try to
change who we are, we simply end up coming back to being the same as
before. There is a saying that "people never change" and it
does have some basis in truth, but those who utter it ought to
understand that
behavior and habits can be changed.
So what I don't get
is: Why do liberals and PC fanatics always seem to deny the
genetic factor in human behavior, even though science says that 50
percent of our personality/behavior comes from our genes? What drives
them to be so irrationally against the science of genes and their
effect? Why do they have a need to believe that everything is a social
construct conditioned by culture and that we are all born a blank
slate? Some even go so far as saying that there are no differences
between men and women other than cultural and biological differences,
which is totally insane. It doesn't make sense. What's their motivation
for denying something so obvious?
Whenever I ask PC
fanatics the following questions, they get stumped:
1. If all our
behaviors are conditioned, why was I born with a fear of heights ever
since I was a toddler? Who or what conditioned me to have a fear of
heights?
2. Why is there a
proven correlation between race and IQ that transcends environment or
upbringing? See here:
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx
3. Why do adopted
children have IQ's that are closer to that of their biological parents
than of their adopted parents?
4. Why do fraternal
twins separated at birth develop many of the same habits,
personalities, choices and names, as studies show?
They can never address
these questions or answer them. Why is that? Why can't they change
their beliefs to fit the facts, rather than deny the facts that don't
fit into their beliefs (aka cognitive dissonance)?
Furthermore, why do
they emphatically claim that there are no differences between races or
groups of people, other than cultural or individual differences?
Consider this: We acknowledge that animals, such as dogs and cats, have
different behaviors and temperaments based on their breed and color. A
German Shepherd for example, has a very different personality than a
Golden Retriever. And black cats are more wild and independent than
white cats, while tabby cats are more friendly, warm and cuddly.
Obviously, these animal differences are not due to culture or
environment. So if different colors and breeds are correlated with
different animal traits and temperaments, why wouldn't it be the same
for human races? Why are innate differences between human races a
taboo? What's the logic behind that?
Do PC fanatics and
liberals even care about truth? Or are they all about not offending
others? What is the rationale or logic behind political correctness?
Does the politically correct crowd really think that political
correctness=truth? And why is political correctness so popular,
especially among young people, and especially among females? It's
almost like a fad or trend among young people (especially females) to
hold politically correct views such as "there are no differences
between groups or races, only cultural and individual differences
exist" etc. They seem to adopt such views like a religion, without
thinking and without regard for evidence, logic or science.
It's really weird and doesn't make sense. And it's one of the reasons
why I often feel alienated around young adult crowds (in addition to
their superficial conversation around lighthearted topics only, and
their expectation of having to act positive about everything). It's
like whenever I describe differences I observe, they become
argumentative, as if I've violate some holy ground of theirs. Very
weird.
Anyway, I think
this article on
PlanetPapers.com
accurately summarizes the relation between genetics and environment:
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3492.php
"The
most fundamental way to rationalize my opinion is quite comprehensible.
It is
that heredity determines one’s potential, but environment
devises
how far one
will reach that potential. “Nature designs blueprints and
nurture
modifies them
each step of the way” (Dempsey and Zimbardo
164).
“(For instance), some genes increase our risk of heart
disease:
but if we know
this and eat less fat, we reduce the risk” (Tudge)."
Since it is not
always
easy to
recognize the difference between what is changeable and what
isn't, perhaps this well known serenity prayer applies:
"God,
grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage
to change the things I can,
And
wisdom to know the difference"
Thank you for reading.
Sincerely,
Winston
Addendum:
Also see Attitude
Fanaticism - A New Wave of American Delusion