Sometimes I have the doubtful pleasure of interviewing candidates. As like to figure out if I am dealing with someone who is not completely useless breather, I tend to ask one or two open-ended questions that give those people an opportunity to think on their feet. The other day, I asked some soyboy about the most interesting concept or idea he has recently come across. Sometimes, those people feel encouraged to virtue signal to the hilt, and if you nod and give them an interested smile, some regurgitate Reddit talking points at a level you would not believe.
The candidate claimed that the most interesting idea he recently came across was the — yawn! — marshmallow test, according to which a simple test consisting of giving small children the choice between one marshmallow now and two at some later point reveals a lot about their ability to delay gratification, correlating quite well with success later in life. So far, so boring. However, some academic pointed out the racist nature of this test and explained that, akshually, the marshmallow test has nothing at all to do with intelligence or the ability to delay gratification. Instead, the issue is that kids who grow up in unstable environments want the marshmallow now because they, quite rightly, apparently, could not trust that they would get two marshmallows if they agreed to that. Thus, those kids are not stupid or losers but instead act smart by taking one marshmallow now as their choice is not between one now and two later but one now or none later.
Those liberal academics are so incredibly stupid. Yet, because nobody puts them in their place, they smugly spout their bullshit. Obviously, the provided explanation is even worse as it invalidates the environment of the child. You move the blame from the kid but this does not improve the leftist position because the new claim is that some societies (or families, depending on the scale you want to use) are, seemingly, unable to function properly as otherwise there would be basic trust and people would believe that you keep your word. If people are unable or unwilling to keep their promises, you will not be able to get much done. Somehow I think I could come up with a country or two that perfectly illustrate this problem. Thus, you need to conclude that the parents lack long-term planning ability just as much as the child in this setting, and if this is an ever-present issue in enough households, the entire country is probably a shithole.
As I pointed out to the candidate, speaking of groups A and B because I am not a racist, if people in group B are unable to build a society, or a stable familiy, in which basic trust exists, this seems to imply that those academics want to blame the environment, which may entail that everybody in it will be diagnosed with the flaws ascribed to only the test taker in the original experiment. Thus, it is not clear how this argument is supposed to improve anything as you just move up one or more layers of abstraction. Consequently, this oh-so-smart lefty argument makes things worse. The soyboy seemed quite embarrassed by this.
I do not think that is is possible to properly “explain away” anything undesirable while remaining coherent. The left has reached the peak of their reasoning with “magic dirt theory”, claiming that all those enterprising illegal immigrants could not build a successful society in their home country but as soon as they have American soil under their feet, they surely will. Of course, we all know how well this has been working out. Then again, people making such claims do not want to convince you logically. They do not care about truth at all. Instead, they want to lie to you and take away your ability to explain to them that they are morons.