Writing about Difference(s)

Perhaps the tricksiest topic in the social sciences — and by extension in public discourse — is “difference”.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/60/1/6

By difference, I mean the following distinct but related questions:

1. Do individual humans differ from each other?
2. Do groups of humans differ from each other?
3. Are these differences stable?
4. What are the causes of these differences?
5. What should the consequences of these differences be?

I have presented these questions in order of difficulty, i.e. they get harder to answer as we go down the list. If bribed appropriately —a nice gin, say, or a large bar of dark chocolate — I might adventure the following answers:

1. Yes, duh.
2. Yes, duh.
3. Depends. Stable across individuals (from a given set of groups)? Maybe for a handful of traits, but mostly not. Stable across time (if you compared the same individuals)? Sure, at least some traits are stable for at least some stretch of time.
4. Umm, how much time we got? Not much? Okay, how about the entire history of the world and our species, known or otherwise. Point to a specific difference and we can explore.
5. All politics exists to answer this question.
   (Yes, that’s a dodge — I promise a fuller answer eventually. Like halfway through that gin.)

The little list above might not resemble how most conversations about difference play out in public discourse today. I suspect this is because many such conversations are not exactly good faith exchanges of ideas. That is, people are coming to them to reiterate a certain ideology or prove a certain point, not to engage in discussion and learn from other points of view.

Why? Because more than a few of those viewpoints are very deeply held. They might relate to how people see themselves. Or they might relate to decisions that people believe affect their interests, tangible or otherwise. Especially when it comes to question 5 — what should the consequences of this difference be? — these consequences becoming larger or smaller than they currently are could have significant repercussions for a whole bunch of folks.

As a result, people make all kinds of arguments, resort to various rhetorical devices, slip into fallacies and ad hominem — or point blank refuse to engage. I think this is a tragedy, in that there are only so many times to dodge a genuine disagreement; sooner or later we will have to work through it instead of dodging around it.

My next few pieces on this blog will be about how we think, write, and talk about difference. I want to cover the following topics (and I’ll come back to link them from this piece as I write them):

1. Individual differences exist (duh), but so what?
2. Group differences exist, but they’re smaller than you think.
3. Individuals are individuals. Groups are groups. Infer from one to the other at your peril.
4. If I hear “nature vs nurture” one more time…
5. HUMANS CHANGE (as do societies)
6. Have you checked your instruments? (*cough*CharlesMurray*cough*)
7. Experimenter bias (also, destructive sampling)
8. “Ancient” differences usually aren’t (*cough*StevenPinker*cough*)
9. “Evolution” is (sometimes) a good explanation for differences; it’s (always) a terrible argument for consequences.
10. The case for skepticism (or, who benefits from your beliefs?)

At 1 blog a week, this might take us well into March. Can’t promise to do these on a specific day of the week, so try checking back every so often.

Here’s a teaser.