Introduction
After several decades of Freudian and Marxian explanations to human behavior and social phenomena prevailing in academia, the plain old biological determinism seems to be making a roaring comeback, with plenty of research indicating that individual behavior and traits can be a result of genetic factors.
This has resulted to heated debates about phenomena related to criminality, mental capability, and social behavior, not to mention race, with people mainly from the left side of the political spectrum dismissing the research of the last couple of decades as biased or even completely fake. To an impartial observer, this may seem like a disagreement between biology and the left.
Yet the left, like most non-experts and even several experts, seems to have misunderstood the indications of the research, without even realizing that it can actually favor leftist views.
The main controversies in a nutshell
Without getting into much detail, we can name some of the main controversies related to conclusions of biology (often plain statistics presented as biology by the media).
- Influence of genetics on complex behavior.
The research of the last decades indicates that our genes can play their role even on complex behavior. Anti-social tendencies, criminality, sexual preferences, mental illness, and proneness to substance abuse, have been confirmed to be genetically influenced. The proof is often statistical, based on twins raised by different families, and biologists have so far few particular genes to point out for particular behaviors, and even less whose precise mechanisms are known. The findings are often backed by neuroscience.
- The role of biology in sexuality and gender-related behavior.
According to the research, not every aspect of gender-related behavior is socially constructed. There have been recorded plenty of cases in which an infant had to undergo sex reassignment surgery for medical reasons, and experienced gender dysphoria later in life. There are cross-cultural studies and meta-analyses showing that there are differences between the genders that cannot be explained in purely sociological terms.
- Differences between human populations
The term "race" has found its' place in the trash of pseudo-science since decades, yet some of the implications of the so-called "scientific racism" seem to have been backed up by recent research. Those include statistical differences between human populations in intelligence, aggressiveness, sexual behavior, even when the socio-economic background and living standards are pretty much the same. African Americans, for instance, had been found to score lower on IQ tests than white Americans of the same socioeconomic status, leading to further research that suggest innate differences between populations.
- Biological basis and inheritability of IQ
Much research on IQ suggests that it is genetically influenced -since twins raised from different families have pretty much the same IQs, with minor deviations, and people tend not to score much differently than their parents. The so-called "Flynn effect" is a strong indication that one's IQ is influenced by environmental and economical factors as well, yet fails to explain the IQ similarities between twins.
- Various implications of evolutionary biology and psychology
These implications include, but are not limited to, the notion that humans may be selfish and/or aggressive in nature, that even altruism can actually be masked egoism, that hierarchies and discrimination can be a part of our nature, and that we may have an innate inclination to particular behavioral patterns, independently from our nurture.
Taking the research with a grain of salt
Even though we have no reason to believe that the research is biased, it should be taken with a grain of salt. As mentioned, much of the research is based on plain statistics, and when it comes to statistics there are literally dozens of things that can go wrong. This kind of statistical research, presented as biological by the media and popular science websites, often neglects to take into account epigenetic factors that can alter the expression of genes, or factors that can alter the brain of a person during its' early development, thereby affecting ones personality in the long term.
A prominent example of something that is hardly taken into account -since there is limited control over it-, is the life-style of a mother during pregnancy. The nutrition, stress levels, and even body fat, of pregnant woman has been shown to affect both the expression of genes on the baby, and its' neurological development.
Which means that, for instance, the indications of IQ differences between white Americans and African Americans of the same income, even if true, they are not necessarily to be attributed to genetic factors, but to epigenetic, or factors related the differences in the lifestyles of pregnant women between the two populations.
Same applies to the research on twins adopted by different families at birth. It remains uncertain whether their similarities in e.g. their IQ are to be attributed to their genes per se, or to epigenetic factors, and even their mothers' lifestyle during pregnancy. The gene-based explanations also do not explain their differences when they exist, thereby making clear that even if the genetic influence on social traits is existent it is definitely not the sole factor.
Last but not least, most of the statistical research that ends up indicating the influence of our genes on complex traits and behavior, is deliberately arranged so that "all factors are equal". That is, the participants are more or less from the same socioeconomic background, often come exclusively from developed countries, and with no medical problems. Yet in real life, these factors are almost never "equal", and researchers have actually a tough time making them so.
Do these implications really mean anything?
Suppose for a moment that all of the above is not only true, but that each and every sociological or psychological explanation we give to social phaenomena and individual behavior is wrong. Suppose that races in an 18th century sense do exist, that complex behaviors depend entirely on our genome, that our IQs are purely genetic just like gender-related behavior and sexuality, and that we are indeed of selfish nature.
Should this affect how we lead our lives and treat our "inferiors"?
Even if races did exist, and even if races of color were indeed of lower intelligence and higher aggressiveness, would that give us the right to treat people of color like garbage? To conquer their homelands and control their natural resources? To pay them less and socially exclude them? To enforce our "genetically superior" culture upon them? Perhaps preventing them from having children with us or even having children in general?
Even if IQs were indeed purely genetic, would that render it right e.g. not to care about the education of people with lower IQs on the grounds that "they are not going to become smart anyway"? Would that justify paying them so low wages that they can barely pay their bills? Shall we make the lives of people with low-IQs a true hell for a choice they didn't make?
Even if there is an evolutionary background favoring sexist behaviors, should this affect how we treat our women? Force them to just take care of their (our) kids because that is what chimps do?
Even if gender-related behavior is purely genetic, is this supposed to mean that whoever deviates from the norm should become an outcast, or even put to death as in some countries?
Even if our nature is indeed more selfish than altruistic, should we just make shameless and obscene selfishness a guide to our lives? Should we just "live for ourselves", pretend that there is "no society, but only individuals"? When some of our cells claim that "there is no human body, but only individual cells", the cancerous tumors they become end up killing that human body, including themselves. Are you sure this "logic" is a wise guide to follow?
It seems that even if these implications were true (they aren't!), they would really mean absolutely nothing when it comes to society and politics, and if we made the mistake take them at face value or use them as policy makers, we would end up living in an hellish mixture of brutal late-stage capitalism and nazism, which would almost certainly lead to our extinction, and a life not-so-worth-living for the vast majority of the people before that extinction eventually occured.
Biology describes how nature is, not how human society is supposed to be.
The examples above should have convinced you by now that the observations of biologists are neither a guide to our morals, nor suitable policy makers. That is, even if they actually were the ones proposed above. Races in the 19th century sense do not exist, it is still disputable whether our nature is more selfish than altruistic, sexist and gender-related behaviors are far from being products of pure biological evolution, and IQs are not purely genetic either.
The claim is that even if we were in a parallel universe where they were, it would still be wrong to use such observations as policy makers. Which means that in our own case, where those hypotheses are far from being technically true, this fact is not even debatable: one cannot use such premises as moral guides or policy makers.
Does the Left deny science?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: there are indeed some far-leftist "denominations", including some ultra-anarchists or communists, that just obviously deny every scientific observation challenges or seems to challenge their beliefs. But isn't this the case with virtually all parts of political spectrum? Even the so-called centrists will deny science if it refutes their beliefs, and indeed do so when it comes to e.g. economic policies.
The left, in general, does not deny science more than its' opponents. Asking if a political affiliation denies science is the equivalent of asking if someone is speaking loudly during a party in a night club: everyone does, so, given the context, we can only say "yes" if he does so to a degree that everyone notices. Which means that the most proper answer to that question is a plain "no".
Whether there is a disagreement between scientific consensus and leftist beliefs is another question. It initially seems that modern science, especially biology, refutes most of the core leftist beliefs. Yet this is far from being the case, not only because science actually indicates something else than what pop science websites claim in their titles, but also because most of the debates named above, are to a great extent moral and not technical. For instance, even if races in the 18th century sense did exist, there would still be nothing right with slavery.
It seems that, morally speaking, there is not even a disagreement, as science was never supposed to dictate our morals in the first place.
-------------------------------------------------
©George Malandrakis
