Population genetics is all the rage these days. Not the science as much as the abuse of the science. You have that nitwit in England claiming interest in this stuff is tantamount to embracing Hitler. But, you also have guys like this who just claim science proves people they don’t like are inferior. But, you also have semi-respectable liberals getting a little frisky with the whole nurture/nature thing. I say semi-respectable because they will surely be expelled from the cult. Jews and Asians are on shaky grounds with the CML as it is. But, there are some entertaining bits of reaction that are worth noticing. Ashok Rao does some interesting things on economics, but he goes into a complete panic over Chua’s latest.
No tiger mom would have let her daughter publish this piece for a fifth grade project, let alone in the New York Times. Amy Chua, in a little under 3000 words, explains her theory of power and prosperity in modern America. Absent from this essay, however, is a single reference to any scientific study. Not only does the article exclude any hyperlinks – appalling for any serious journalism in the 21st Century – it refers to several anonymous “studies” without providing any information about the authors, making it well-nigh impossible for a reader to track it down.
Yes, the lack of hyperlkinks is what makes Shakespeare unreadable today. It is a strangely modern thing to fill up an essay with links to supporting documentation. Instead of persuading with well reasoned arguments, the writer is now expected to build a legal case, using prior arguments as precedent. If the area is related to science in any way, then you have to link to studies that you claim support your argument. It really is a tedious way of doing things and complete bullshit. The form is not intended to improve the work, it is intended to blunt it. It socializes reason in a way that is unreasonable. Amy Chua’s arguments are hardly original, but they stand on their own.
Anyway, I’m not a Chua fan, but I am enjoying the reaction to her from different corners. She’s probably right about why certain ethnic minorities have prospered while others have sunk to the bottom. Those traits, however, don’t spring from nothingness. I suspect she knows that, but she also likes showing up in the NYTimes and the swank book parties in Manhattan. That means she can describe what the elephant in the room would like if there was a room and an elephant, which there’s not and only racists would think so. Who knows, maybe she can play the victim card if some critic gets carried away or is from the wrong sub-group, not that anyone sees race, if race existed, which it doesn’t.