You can’t make these things up:

College science classes are hostile to women and minorities because they use the scientific method, which assumes people can find reliable truths about the natural world through careful and sustained experimentation, concludes a recent dissertation by a doctoral candidate at the University of North Dakota. Laura Parson, a student in the university’s education department, reviewed eight science class syllabi at a “Midwest public university” and said she discovered in them a hidden hostility to women and minorities: “Initial exploration of the STEM syllabi in this study did not reveal overt references to gender, such as through the use of gendered pronouns. However, upon deeper review, language used in the syllabi reflects institutionalized STEM teaching practices and views about knowledge that are inherently discriminatory to women and minorities by promoting a view of knowledge as static and unchanging, a view of teaching that promotes the idea of a passive student, and by promoting a chilly climate that marginalizes women.” Even though the course syllabi contained no “gendered assumptions” about students or other overtly discriminatory implications, Parson writes, they display prejudice against women and minorities because they refuse to entertain the possibility that “scientific knowledge is subjective.”

Obviously it is amusing to see a feminist say, with a straight face, that women and minorities cannot perceive reality so we have to declare reality racist and sexist, I suppose with an expectation it will be chastened and change. But this interesting on a deeper level.

Notice, this liberal is basically asserting that the ability to deny simple reality, and publicly affirm untruths as truths, is a fundamental human right, and since the world’s reality tends not to allow that, there is something wrong with it. People of the Lie indeed.

We really cannot understand this, because we cannot imagine believing in a lie, and operating contrary to reality because it that, because we know that would be antithetical to our long-term interests. As a result, the only way we could see lying, would be to selfishly advance our own interest through deceit, while knowing the truth. Liberals are different, however. They believe the lie because that is how they are programmed.

This adherence to untruths is fundamental to their brain programming, due to an amygdala that is programmed to flee from and deny all adverse realities. Liberals, as r-strategists, are programmed to seek out the optimized world available to them. Since resources are free in r-selection, the r-strategist who refuses to adapt to a present adversity, and instead rejects the harshness to flee to a new, adversity-free, resource rich environment, will produce more offspring than the individual who accepts the adversity as part of the world. To the leftist, adverse realities are meant to be denied, and if possible, fled from. It is weird to have a brain designed like that, but if that is adaptive, that is what you will get.

This creates a psychology where any adversity is reflexively seen as unnecessary and avoidable, even if it is some uncomfortable realization about the world. It is also a psychology that is unaware of why anyone would not want to realize the amygdala-assuaging aspects of reality denial themselves. To them this is a human right you should want too.

This is in stark contrast to the K-strategist who is programmed to realize and accept all adversity, so it may be most effectively coped with and adapted to. If anything, we view the right to acknowledge adverse concepts, and take measures to deal with them as our fundamental human right. Being forced to deny threats and then watch as they overtook us would be as horrible to us as having to see reality is to the liberal.

In being partially correct, albeit only from the leftist perspective, this study does reveal one fundamental truth – there is no living with liberals, if you are a K-strategist. Especially if K-selection is approaching.