Today, I think it is the scientific study of the mind that people tend to blend with deep moral issues. I’ll give you just a few examples of questions that have been raised by people in the field of psychology that have gotten them into trouble because even though they, in theory, are purely intellectual questions, people believe that they shake the foundations of morality. Do most victims of sexual abuse suffer no lifelong damage? Do women, on average, have a different average aptitude in mathematical reasoning than men? Are Ashkenazi Jews on average smarter than Gentiles because their ancestors had been selected for the shrewdness needed in money lending? Is morality just a gadget that evolution installed in our brains with no inherent reality? Are religious beliefs like parasites, which colonize the minds of believers? Is the average intelligence of Western nations falling because duller people are having more children than smarter people?
Do men have an innate tendency to rape? Do women who give birth under difficult circumstances have an innate tendency to abandon or even kill their newborns?...
Why did the hairs on the back of our neck stand up when we entertain purely intellectual research questions such as these?
It brings up a phenomenon called the Psychology of Taboo, the sensation that certain ideas are evil to think. Quite apart from the fact, of course, that certain actions are evil to commit, but can it be sinful even to think a thought?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
On Taboo
Great little speech by Steven Pinker about implicit social restrictions on academic inquiry, specifically w/r/t "taboo" subjects. He basically argues that we have a tendency to assign moral weight to questions that should be purely intellectual in nature:
Finally got around to ordering Pinker's book "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Didn't they make a game out of that speech, called "Taboo?"
In the spirit of the speech, I'll ask a hypothetical psychological, but purely intellectual, question. If you had to give up all pleasures but one, which would you retain? (no compound pleasures allowed, like having sex while playing hockey at the beach). I think mine would be reading.
Pinker's a plenty smart guy, but I wonder how important this latest point is (my views based entirely on the quote and article James provides). I'm not a postmodern crackpot who thinks that science is just another conspiracy by privileged white men to extend their power. But, who can deny that each scientist brings a particluar perspective to inquiry. Taboos reflect the spirit of the times and may be difficult to remove from inquiry altogether.
Plus, most of the taboos Pinker's cites are residual reactions to past prevailing taboos. There was a time when men could rape their wives with impunity; now we're suspeicious of science that says, oh, that's really OK. We've also had a lot of past psuedo-science about race and intelligence, and science which supported essentialist views of women. So, naturally, we're skeptical when people want to renew such claims. Is it taboo or is it a healthy doubt?
Sounds like Louie CK- If we stopped vilifying child molesters maybe the child molesters would be less likely to kill the children. So, if we eliminated punishment for child molesters they would be less likely to kill their victims, since victims' testimonies would now be meaningless. Since parents would prefer a molested child over a dead child and a molester would prefer no jail to jail, it is a win-win. Stupid taboos about molestation.
I have to read Pinker's book but my gut feeling in an academic setting most of the questions can be and is asked but publications and colleagues would laugh at you without an abundance of evidence like any other scientific inquiry. I think scientists get in trouble when they stupidly ask it in a public forum (aka Summers or the autism linking vaccine Jerk, Wakefield). For instance, comedy writers can say whatever they please in the writer's room but as to what gets on TV is regulate by the foundations of the network, freedom of HBO versus the security of Nick. Same goes with science, scientist can and do ask whatever questions they want, however this does not mean they will get grants/publications/freedom from ridicule for the idea.
Science is held back in part by taboo, what NIH grants handed out are influenced in part by societal values or how many people afflicted, (more questions are asked of cancer than Gastroschisis-(born with organs on the outside of body) due to the rates of occurrence in populations). Luckily privatized grants to ideas that don't get or not enough government grants help to alleviate directional science (aka CF foundation). However, privatize grants often incorporate own bias or taboos (pro-white groups studies on black IQ results etc.).
I think academia setting in large part remove taboos, though always there in some degree because humans can't devoid themselves of their own feelings completely (though science is getting closer, block those feeling neurotransmitters!). Taboo definitely seems to leave the room in anatomy class- teacher juggling male and female brains.
Like I have always said, remove the human aspect from science and science could be done more efficiently and would create model system in greater detail.
I'm not sure what you mean by "remove the human aspect from science" …especially in Pinker's field of psychology.
It sounds like the ideal situation would be to have a highly intelligent alien race arrive on earth and perform experiments without regard to any human values, motives or taboos, and for "purely intellectual questions."
Yes, exactly-though instead of alien more like posthuman or advance AI. It would take E.T forever to get here since we only started to broadcast our whereabouts approximately 75 years ago.
Post a Comment