Genetic Explanations

Chivalry – An evolutionary explanation


There are a number of psychological tests that can elucidate our moral compass i.e. establish what moral beliefs we all hold.  These tests can be applied to people from different cultures and belief systems.  From these tests we can demonstrate that mankind shares an innate moral code, independent of religious indoctrination or cultural teaching.  This moral code is hardwired in the same way as much animal behaviour is hardwired.  It is part of human nature.

Psychologists investigating how far our moral behaviour depends on the gender of the people who will be affected found that as a society we are far less willing to harm women than men. Test subjects were presented with a series of moral dilemmas. The first was based on the classic “trolley problem” where people are told that they are on a bridge above a railway line and can see a runaway trolley on course to kill five people. The only way to stop the trolley is to block its path — and the only thing big enough to do that is an overweight person leaning over the bridge. Do you push the person over, killing one to save many?

When given the choice between pushing a man or a woman overwhelmingly, by 88 per cent to 12 per cent, they went for the man. When asked why they chose the man examples of responses were ‘‘in a utilitarian situation, I value women and children over men”, “‘[pushing] a man is the moral thing to do” and “women are fragile and it would be morally wrong.”

This scientific study demonstrates an intuitive and moral protective feeling towards women based on a theoretical situation.  However, this is backed up by statistics that show that as a species we are also much more accepting of harming men in the real world.  In the UK men are the victims of 62% of violent crime.  They are also much more likely to die early and violently though accident and trauma. They account for 95% of work related deaths, 92% of motorcycle deaths and have three times the overall road traffic mortality rate as women.  Men account for 75% of suicides and are 68% of all murder victims.  And just to remind ourselves that as a society we are happy to deliberately put our young men in harm’s way, the statistics for UK military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan to May 2012 reports 582 male deaths and 8 female.

All the statistics seem to indicate that the world is a much more dangerous place for men than for women.  The lack of fuss over these statistics and the media obsession with violence against women shows that we are generally accepting of this fact.

This result is only a surprise if your starting assumption is that men and women are born with the same behavioural potential and society moulds us into different sexes.

Let’s accept the fact that we humans are an evolved species that has been built as a life support machine for our genes and to propagate them into future generations.  This process has taken 3,500,000,000 years.  Let’s also understand, like all other animals, that much of our behaviour is hardwired by our genes.  i.e. not learned.  Finally let’s understand that evolution takes a long time.  One tick of the evolutionary clock is about 250,000 years, so we are very similar to our ancestors from 30,000 years ago.  We now have an explanation for this phenomenon.

Men and women are fundamentally different, have been subject to different evolutionary pressures and are hardwired to behave in different ways to ensure survival of their genes.

Women have a pathetic ability to reproduce their genes, having only a limited number of pregnancies in a life time and generally only having one offspring at a time.  In our evolutionary past many women did not survive pregnancy and child birth. Their fertility declines sharply at 35 and falls off a cliff at 40.  Men’s ability to reproduce is limited only by finding enough willing or unwilling women to impregnate.  They are fertile for nearly all their life.  So, in evolutionary terms, women are more valuable.

An isolated population with 95 men and 5 women is unlikely to do well in the long run.  A population with 95 women and 5 men has a better chance.  Consequently men and women have been hardwired to protect women.  This also explains why men are more likely to take risks and to die in accidents and war.  We have evolved to be more willing to put men in harm’s way.

This is in the best interests of our genes.


Moral Chivalry

Further reading:

Men are the main victims of violence and violent death

Why do men commit most of the crimes?

The Behaviour of Women and Why They Worry About How They Look – an Evolutionary Perspective

Women are either bisexual or lesbian, but rarely straight.

Female Bitchiness and Unsisterly Behaviour – An Evolutionary Explanation

Why human societies dislike female sexual promiscuity – an evolutionary explanation

Why Does 50 Shades of Grey Appeal to Women?

Why do male students get more first class degrees at Oxford University than female students?

Men and Women Evolved With Conflicting Interests – Why We don’t Always Get Along

Liberty, Politics and Economics

Brexit – The Movie. A critique.

or stream the video here:  Brexit – the movie


This movie revealed an EU that is relatively undemocratic, frustratingly opaque, often unaccountable and hopelessly bureaucratic. The EU’s accounts have not been transparent enough to be signed off by an independent auditor for years, which means it could also be corrupt. I was appalled to discover that democratically elected MEPs cannot suggest or initiate legislation (that can only be done by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats) and neither can they repeal legislation once it is on the statute books.

On the business side it covered the enemies of a successful economy: lack of competition, restriction of free trade, excessive regulation and (again) bureaucracy. All areas in which the EU excels.  The EU has restrictions on trade with countries outside the EU and this stifles competition.   It is also damaging the economic growth of poor African countries by preventing access to the EU markets for their farming produce.  The examples of it gave of free trade and lack of Government control and regulation unleashing an economic miracle in post-war Germany, whilst the UK economy drowned in Government regulation and bureaucracy (i.e. socialism) was compelling.  As was the example of the huge economic success of Switzerland, which is outside the EU and free of its regulation, bureaucracy and general centrally controlled interference and incompetence.  Switzerland also has some of the lowest levels of social inequality in Europe.

The film also made the excellent point that we don’t need trade agreements with other countries to trade with them. In fact the UK  trades with many countries without a trade agreement. In the same way my company doesn’t need a contract to sell products to our customers. They just buy according to our standard terms and conditions.

However, I thought their emphasis on Tate and Lyle and the decline of the British fishing industry was weak, as these are relatively old and small industries.  Examples of biotechnology and technology industries would have been more compelling.  The huge success of the Swiss pharmaceutical industry, despite being outside the EU, was briefly mentioned and should have got more prominence.  There should also have been some debate on the effect of EU membership on quality and quantity of scientific research in Europe.  And everything said by the editor of The Sun newspaper lowered the tone of the debate.

Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England thinks the economic impact of Brexit or remaining in the EU will be broadly similar:

All in all, I’m not convinced there will be an economic disaster if the UK left the EU. The CBI, IMF and other so-called economic experts have all been wrong before.  Very recently the IMF and EU said George Osborne’s economic plan for Britain would cause a major recession and mass unemployment. They were wrong.  UK has the strongest growth in the developed world and low unemployment.  The EU economy is a disaster, particularly in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.  Unemployment levels are high and their youth unemployment levels are scandalous.  High European unemployment is predominantly caused by restrictive labour laws i.e. bureaucratic, Government intervention in the employment market.  Perhaps the UK’s economy is doing reasonably well despite, and not because of, EU membership.  Maybe we would do even better without the EU.

In any case there is also the future possibility of rejoining the EU, perhaps even negotiating better terms.

Even if it is proven that the EU gives specific economic benefit it would have to be huge to compensate us for not having a democratic and accountable Government making our laws.

If the Brexit debate is just about the economy why don’t we just sell our freedom and sovereignty to the highest bidder?  China may be prepared to pay us a lot more than the EU for the rights to make British laws.

The one opinion I really value is The Economist newspaper, which I have read religiously for over 25 years. I generally find their views agree with my own.  They are very much in favour of staying in the EU, which is why I am still wavering.

Liberty, Politics and Economics

Should Muirfield Golf Club be allowed to ban female members?


Muirfield Golf Club will not stage another Open Championship after maintaining its ban on women members.  The Scottish club said voting in favour of allowing female members had fallen just short of the required two thirds majority required to change its rules.

There are a very small number of single sex golf clubs in the UK and roughly half of them are women’s clubs.

A private club is a place where like-minded people can meet and socialise.  Effectively a private club is free to exclude anyone based upon any criteria, regardless of how bigoted those criteria may be.

Should The State have the right to dictate to its citizens how they socialise and with whom they socialise?  For example, by passing laws banning private clubs or dictating their membership criteria.   i.e. restricting the right of free association.  Certainly not in a free country.

There are many, many people (particularly on the left of politics) who would like nothing more than to restrict the social activities of the rich and privileged. In fact, they would like to control how society behaves and thinks in general.  They justify the consequent legislation, prosecution and bullying of citizens whose views are different to their own by claiming they are eradicating racism, sexism and inequality. This leads to social engineering and the terrifying concept of “The Thought Police” as portrayed in George Orwell’s  1949 novel Nineteen Eighty- Four and Stalin’s real-life Soviet Communist State.

It was in the communist Soviet Union that the phrase “politically correct” was born. i.e. something could be demonstrably true or scientifically correct but politically incorrect because it didn’t support their particular political philosophy.

To maintain a free society we are in the unfortunate position of having to support Muirfield’s right to have a private club and choose their own membership, even if we disagree with their decisions. In the same way we must support a person’s right to free speech even if they use this right to express bigoted views.

If we go too far in criticising the likes of Muirfield there is the danger of populist but well meaning politicians empowering State intervention through legislation, which would be much worse.  And when political correctness goes too far we have the additional danger of a potential counter-movement, which could be even more worrying – i.e. Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen.

So, a free society means giving our citizens the freedom to make bad choices and actively supporting that right.

Further Reading:

Discrimination by private members clubs and associations – overview

Why is it legal for some golf clubs to still be single sex?

How does the Equality Act 2010 affect private clubs and associations?

Genetic Explanations

Women are either bisexual or lesbian, but rarely straight.


When it comes to what turns them on, women are either bisexual or gay, but rarely straight, according to a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by the University of Essex.

The study, which involved 345 women using eye tracking devices and direct measurements of genital physiological sexual response, found that “straight” women were strongly sexually aroused by videos of both attractive men and attractive women – even though they reported that they are only sexually interested in men.

This was in contrast to lesbians who showed much stronger sexual responses to women than men. It shows that lesbians are more male-typical in their arousal than “straight” women. It is usually men who show distinct sexual responses to their favourite sex.

According to the author, Dr. Gerulf Rieger, “this shows us that how women appear in public does not mean that we know anything about their sexual role preferences. Men are simple, but women’s sexual responses remain a mystery.”

An understanding of evolutionary biology will demonstrate that women’s sexual response is not a mystery but entirely explainable and predictable.  See below.

This research, published in October 2015, is supported by data in the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles  published in The Lancet in November 2013.  It is one of the world’s most comprehensive studies of changing sexual habits and it indicated a big increase in relationships between women.  The number of lesbian encounters has increased fourfold.  The percentage of females who say they have had a sexual “experience”, including kissing, with another woman has increased from 4% to 16%. The number saying they have had sex with another woman has gone up from 2% to 8%.  While the figure for women has increased fourfold in 20 years, for men it has barely changed — 7% for same-sex “experiences” and from 4% to 5% for physical sex.

What has caused this change?  Have women’s desires changed?  If not, are they more likely to live out their fantasies?  Or are they behaving as they have always done, just more likely to admit to same sex relationships in survey?

Many media articles on this subject have postulated the factors which could be “causing” more women to “change” their feeling of sexual attraction towards other women

For example:  seeing more friends indulging in same sex relationships affecting their sexual orientation; internet porn and computer games causing men to fail women sexually, “driving” them into lesbian affairs; recent media exposure to “celebrity lesbians” affecting women’s sexuality; witnessing lesbian relationships in books and films affecting women’s sexuality ……..

These articles are assuming that it is society that “causes” us behave in these ways, that because society expects certain behaviour we are more likely to adopt that behaviour.

None of the media articles commentating on a major survey about one of the most basic, primordial human instincts even mentions how genetics and 3,500,000,000 years of evolution may affect women’s sexual behaviour.

There is a convincing genetic and evolutionary reason why women are more likely to find each other physically attractive and men are less likely to find each other physically attractive.

Evolution is not about survival of the species, it is about survival of the genes.  All living things are a disposable container that has evolved to ensure its genes get moved forward in time.  Living things die.  Their genes don’t.  So any behaviour conferred by those genes, which increases the likelihood of their host having more offspring, will ensure more of those genes are passed to the next generation, amplifying that behaviour in future generations.

Evolution takes a long time.  One tick of the evolutionary clock takes about 250,000 years, so we are virtually identical to our ancestors from a mere 50,000 years ago. And our male and female ancestors have had very different evolutionary pressure over the previous millions of years.  Males and females have consequently evolved very differently.

Human females have a pathetic ability to reproduce, having no more than a dozen pregnancies in their lifetime. Each pregnancy is life threatening and she will generally only produce offspring one at a time. Human children are unusually vulnerable in infancy and take many years to reach maturity.  Women therefore engage in a long, energy sapping and life-threatening investment in their children to ensure these (few) offspring reach childbearing age.  She must choose her mate with great care to ensure her offspring receive beneficial genes from the father, which in turn maximises the chance of her own genes prospering in the next generation.  It also means she must carefully and selflessly look after the few offspring she manages to produce. She (i.e. her genes) has no other choice.  So human females have evolved to be more nurturing.

Human males produce 250,000 sperm every second and their number of offspring is limited only by their opportunity to impregnate willing (or unwilling) females.   Two strategies would work to increase the number of their genes in the next generation:  1. Look after their offspring, nurture them and ensure they reach child-bearing age  (i.e. copy the only strategy available to women);  2. Spread their sperm as far and wide as possible, have thousands of offspring and hope that some reach childbearing age.  A third alternative is the best.  Do both.  Men invest almost nothing in child rearing so it makes sense for them to take huge risks to have the opportunity to reproduce. So human males evolved to be more competitive and risk taking.

Women will choose high social status men (a proxy for good genes) to ensure their own genes have a good chance of survival.  To prove high social status takes a bit longer so women tend to go for successful, older men (4 years older in the UK on average).  Men are programmed to advertise their success and achievements in order to attract a high social status mate.

Men will choose younghealthy, fertile (i.e. physically attractive) women because their chosen mate primarily needs to be fit to survive 9 months of pregnancy and the years of childcare that follows. Men have evolved to visually select a mate on this basis.  Women have evolved for millions of years with this pressure.  Women are therefore programmed to try to look young and attractive in order to find a suitable mate.  Much of this behaviour is hard wired, as is our sexuality and our urge to have sex with attractive members of the opposite sex.  Heterosexual women also need to recognise these traits in their competition (i.e. other women).  Women easily know if another woman is attractive.  So, even heterosexual women have evolved to appreciate the female form, and for some this will go a bit further.  This answers the question  – why women can find each other sexually attractive.

As physical attractiveness is less important to heterosexual men than heterosexual women, men have generally not evolved to know if another man is physically attractive. They tend to compete on success and status.

The desires of men and women have not changed much in 50,000 years, however women are now able to admit to, and indulge in, more lesbian behaviour because we are more tolerant and open about homosexuality.  Technology has allowed anonymous sexual surveys leading to more honesty in answering survey questions; and the anonymity of the internet allows women to meet similar minded women online and explore their sexuality without having to go to a terrifying lesbian club by themselves.

Genetic research consistently shows that the effect of our environment on our behaviour is much smaller and much more transient than we imagine.  This is important because our politicians incorrectly believe they can make big changes to human behaviour by meddling in aspects of public social policy and personal liberty; whereas much of our behaviour is already hardwired by evolutionary processes.

I’m describing the is not the ought of human behaviour, and nothing here should make us believe we can predict the behaviour of individual men and women.  But please remember evolution is about survival of our genes and does not care one jot about human happiness, fairness or equality.

Further Reading:

Getting in touch with our female sexuality

National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles.

Sexual Arousal and Masculinity-Femininity of Women

The Behaviour of Women and Why They Worry About How They Look – an Evolutionary Perspective

Female Bitchiness and Unsisterly Behaviour – An Evolutionary Explanation

Why human societies dislike female sexual promiscuity – an evolutionary explanation

Why Does 50 Shades of Grey Appeal to Women?

Why do male students get more first class degrees at Oxford University than female students?

Men and Women Evolved With Conflicting Interests – Why We don’t Always Get Along

Education, Genetic Explanations

Dr. Rachel Cohen is wrong about the modern causes of social inequality.

Acland Burghley, an inner-city comprehensive school in north London, invited the actor Damian Lewis (who has starred in TV hits such as Homeland and Wolf Hall) to switch on a laser display for their 50th Anniversary celebrations.

But a former pupil, Dr Rachel Cohen, a City University sociology lecturer, gets up a petition. Lewis, she says is a “wholly inappropriate choice” to take part in the school’s celebrations. Is this because he is a paedophile, a wife-beater or a drug addict?  No.  It is because he went to Eton, which she said “embodied the reproduction of privilege and inequality in the UK”.  According to Cohen, the actor didn’t represent “real Burghley values”.

Dr. Rachel Cohen has fallen into the trap of good logic based on a false premise.  It goes something like this:

Talented and motivated children are produced at random and are equally spread in society regardless of social class or parental income.  And the only way to nurture and develop that talent is to go to a school with high levels of financial resource – e.g. a private school.

This logic concludes that private schools produce a disproportionate number of talented individuals because more money is spent on honing that talent. And that this is unfair to equally talented children who do not receive the same opportunities.

The basic premise of this argument is demonstrably wrong.

In actual fact talent and motivation, in whatever form, is mostly genetically inherited from our parents. It is not allocated randomly.

Up to World War Two, there was little social mobility because of the way British society was structured.  If you were born into coal mining village before the 1930s there was a very high likelihood that this is where you would stay, regardless of talent.  Genetic studies (identical twin / adoption studies) up until World War Two confirmed that social class had an impact on our eventual social status.

After World War Two there was an enormous social mobility due to Grammar Schools, public school scholarship and much improved State schools.  As the social restrictions in our society were removed children with the genes that coded for talent and motivation broke free.  This happened across Britain with working class children shooting up the social scale with talent in science, engineering, law, sports and the arts.

These talented people did well.  They earned a good living, achieved a higher social status and joined the affluent middle classes.  They married other talented and motivated individuals and had children who had a higher than average chance of inheriting their parents’ genes for talent and motivation.  As these (now middle class) children had parents who were more affluent they also had a higher chance of being sent to a private school.

So effectively, genes for talent and motivation starting leaving the working class areas (such as coal mining villages) after World War Two and became middle class. 

We would predict that eventually we would see a more polarised genetic society as the genes for talent and motivation are slowly leached out of the working class areas.  Social mobility will slow down and humanities educated journalists and politicians will scratch their heads and wonder why, and then conclude that more must be done to help the talented working class children who used to exist but have now mysteriously disappeared.

Genetic studies since World War Two confirm that social class has relatively little impact on our eventual social status.

The irony is breath taking. Increased household income inequality and slowing levels of social mobility are the result of society becoming more equal. Talented children are still reaching their potential, it’s just that more of them are now middle class.

The class-war warriors, socialists and genetics ignorant sociologists (such as Dr Rachel Cohen) had a laudable dream of equality whereby poor working class children would be fairly and equally represented in society.  They made the assumption that talented and motivated children where thrown up by society at random.  i.e. that talented and motivated children are equally spread across class and relative affluence.  So once “equality” was achieved they imagined a world where there would be a fair representation of working class originated talent in the top echelons of society in perpetuity.

They were wrong. Society is now much more equal, but because talent and motivation are largely genetically encoded the talent has just migrated to the affluent parts of society by the process I have described.  This process is called assortative mating.

Genetics is probabilistic not deterministic.  However, so is the macro level consequence of its effect.  It is more likely that talent will migrate to the middle classes, in a society that is relatively socially mobile, by the process of assortative mating.  So 7% of all students who attend private schools make up 40% of Oxbridge intake, for example.  Not 50% or 100% but 40%.  So 60% still come from the State sector.  This disproportion is explained by assortative mating, not by discrimination.

But this is not enough for the class-war warriors, socialists and genetics-ignorant sociologists (such as Dr Rachel Cohen).  They would want the 7% of students who are privately educated to make up 7% of Oxbridge intake. i.e. not equality of opportunity but equality of outcome.

Our future is not entirely genetically determined and I have no doubt that good schools with quality teachers still make a difference. We should continue do everything we can to ensure that individuals from all parts of society have access to an excellent education and quality careers with equal opportunity to succeed on merit alone.  But if we are to have a serious debate on helping the “disadvantaged” we need to look at all causes of “inequality” and move away from the discredited 1960’s assumptions that it is explained by “nurture” and “class”, which is what Rachel Cohen believes.  Our sociologists should learn a little about evolutionary biology and genetics before making these wild assumptions.

Further Listening:

Intelligence: Born Smart, Born Equal, Born Different   (three BBC radio programmes on the genetics of intelligence)


Twins early development studies

Differences in students’ GCSE results owe more to genetics than environment:

IQ is in the Genes

Why Poorer Students Are Underrepresented In Top Universities – an Evolutionary Perspective

One Cause of Inequality: More Rich Marrying One Another

Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality

Women, Men and the New Economics of Marriage

How Much Difference Does a Good School Make to Your Child’s Academic Achievement?

Getting ’em young (The Economist looks at the impact of early years education)

We can’t ignore the evidence: genes affect social mobility



Liberty and the morality of foetal “gendercide” abortions.


We’ve known for years that the selective abortion of female foetuses is a common practice in cultures where the economic value of women is considered lower than men.  In many Middle Eastern and Indian cultures parents live with their sons and their daughter-in-laws.   Their sons are valued for their ability to provide a secure and comfortable retirement. The more sons one has, the more secure and comfortable the retirement, and the more daughter-in-laws to provide the domestic duties.  Daughters also require an expensive dowry in India, but in Middle Eastern cultures the future husband buys his wife.  This may be why India has more gender-based abortion than the Gulf States.

The problem is worse in China where the one child policy has exacerbated the problem.  In some provinces the ratio is 130 boys to 100 girls, whereas we would normally expect a ratio of 103 to 108 boys to every 100 girls. Other East Asian countries, including Taiwan and Singapore, former communist states in the western Balkans and the Caucasus, and even sections of America’s population (Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, for example) all have distorted sex ratios (reference). The statistics don’t seem to reveal much evidence of gendercide in the UK, with the exception of the figure for Chinese immigrants (109 boys to 100 girls). Gendercide exists on almost every continent. It affects rich and poor; educated and illiterate; Hindu, Muslim, Confucian and Christian alike.

So gender-based abortions around the world are carried out primarily for economic reasons.  Perhaps a better way to reduce this practice is to increase the economic value of women by social change, rather than by draconian abortion law?

Abortion is often carried out for other economic reasons, including in the UK, where any two doctors can argue that allowing a pregnancy to go to term is more dangerous for the mother than an early abortion.  The fact that a full pregnancy is also now very safe seems to be irrelevant in this argument.   The UK effectively has abortion on demand.  Many UK abortions are carried out because the future child (boy or girl) is inconvenient to the mother’s current economic circumstances, education or career.  In the rich world, where another pregnancy is unlikely to result in a threat to the mother’s health or cause her real poverty, this amounts to a lifestyle choice.   Exactly the same philosophy results in gendercide when extended into cultures where boys are more economically beneficial than girls.

This may be pointing to a conclusion that abortion is morally wrong and should therefore be heavily restricted.  However, by restricting something that is wrong is not necessarily right.  Often the restrictions make matters worse.  As a society Britain has reluctantly agreed that abortion is a necessary evil.  This is often for good practical reasons rather than good moral ones e.g. : to prevent dangerous amateur abortions; protect women’s physical and mental health; prevent many unwanted children being brought up by reluctant mothers; acknowledging pregnant women can travel abroad for abortions…..and a recognition that women are valuable economic members of our society, who have their own rights and a vote.  So let’s be clear that British society has not decided that the lifestyle of the mother is worth more than the life of the future baby. It has decided that making abortion illegal is worse than making it legal.

But perhaps even more could be done to stop women having unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

As a society we should work very hard to ensure that abortion is safe, legal and very rare.

Politics and Economics

Is recent extreme populism a reaction to extreme political correctness?


Mexicans, Muslims, African-Americans and Chinese have all been insulted by Donald Trump. In August, he accused a popular news presenter of asking questions about his serial misogyny because she was menstruating — and his poll numbers rose.

He enraged much of the British establishment this week by suggesting that Muslim-dominated parts of Britain had become no-go areas for police. Yet the latest poll suggests that 35 per cent of Republican voters, the highest figure yet, want him as their presidential nominee.

There is a misguided campaign to have Mr. Trump banned from the UK because of his populist views. I don’t support his views either, but he has the right to express his opinions and voters have the right to listen to him, make an informed choice and vote for him. And his populism is not alone.   In Europe populists are in power in Poland and Hungary, and in the governing coalition in Switzerland and Finland. In the first round of the French regional elections on 6th December, the far-right National Front (FN) gained the largest share of the national vote. The FN’s leader, Marine Le Pen, and her niece each polled over 40%. 

This far-right populism is perhaps a natural reaction to the con of political correctness gone berserk.  The con is the flawed belief that a human being is born as a malleable lump of clay that can be manipulated and moulded by society into anything that we want.  i.e. social policy can liberate people from their own limitations, flaws, personal inadequacies and insecurities through legislation and indoctrination.

The problem with political correctness  (if there is one) is that it has a strong vision of how the world ought to be.  Inconvenient truths are met with denial followed by shrill personal attacks and screams of “racism” and “sexism”.  Like all idealists (including socialists) there is little debate about how the world actually is and little effort to find pragmatic solutions and compromises.  This can lead to very poor and expensive decision-making, as many real-world facts are not considered before choosing a chain of action. We now experience constant change regarding gender identity, roles in society and social, sexual, racial and religious equality.  We are moving beyond laudable intentions around equality of opportunity to the dangerous premise of equality of outcome – irrespective of possible average natural differences between the classes, races and sexes.

But for the vast majority human happiness is based on security, familiarity, predictability and conformity.  i.e. understanding your place in the world and knowing how to navigate it.  Fundamentally most people don’t like change.  Change management is an enormous industry in the world of work for this reason.  Trade unions desperately try to stop the world of their members changing because it is considered harmful and stressful.

Small groups of people with a “cause” are highly motivated to change the world to suit their own agenda.   They have energy and intelligence to seize power through the media and government and then change the world to suit their own personal grievances.  But they are often a minority and their constant moving of once-taken-for-granted certainty in our societies causes stress, anxiety, confusion and unhappiness for the majority.

Perhaps Mr. Trump and Ms. Le Pen are speaking for a significant number of voters who believe that political correctness has gone too far.  It is possible to have too much of a good thing.  Political correctness must be reigned back and infused with real world truths or we risk voters supporting these populist extreme counter-measures, which would be much worse.