[throwaw4ybio]

>Pinker traces the origins of this dynamic all the way back to 1975 and the publication of E.O. Wilson’s “Sociobiology,” when Wilson and other biologists “would get shouted down” for expressing the view that genetic and other evolutionary considerations determine, in part, social organization.

Two things that might serve as food for thought:

1) I guarantee that know-it-all, newly-minted young adults getting mad at professors didn't start in 1975, though simultaneous social shifts (e.g. things like the anti-Vietnam-War movement) might have made it more socially acceptable for the youngins to speak up in those places.

2) People complaining about being oppressed on campus because of their ideas frequently seem to have the same weird idea. Whereas, no one goes and yells at Lee Smolin when he bags on string theory.

[Out_of_Characte]

On your second point. It does seem interesting that any publication or statement that can be cancelled must be rooted in a certain field where morality can be injected. String theory or astronomy, although complex, is completely abstracted from human society.

Genetics, IQ and Psychology all share parts of their work with things that are intrinsically connected to human society. IQ specifically is also designed to remove any bias to any particular group, culture, language or schooling. and even then the field does not escape the 'cancel culture' with countless articles having been written about discrimination that author of the bell curve supposedly displayed.

Speaking out against discrimination and immorality has always been a virtue but the burden of proof has disappeared and there is no apparent consequence against defaming/cancelling someone innocent. I've never been a fan of libel laws because it can be used to silence opposition but I dont see many other ways to prevent the creation of these authorities by mob rule without proof.