>>13266234It's likely multifaceted.
Rather than discussing "the reason", it would make more sense to discuss "independent contributions".
A possibility that I find interesting is that the backlash against "virtue signalling" is playing a part.
Most of what we call virtue signalling seems to rely on the denial of inherent traits.
Left wing virtue signalling relies on the assumption that all differences are the consequence of of social privileges and oppressions.
If some people were just lower IQ, higher time preference etc due to genetics, then what?
The leftist can no longer point to statistical differences and claim that he is fighting oppression while you are afraid of losing your privilege.
Individualist right wing virtue signalling relies on the assumption that all differences are the consequence of attitude and work.
If some people were just less attractive due to genetics, then what?
The individualist can no longer point to less attractive people and claim that the differences are evidence of his better attitude or harder work.
Religious virtue signalling relies on the assumption that all differences are the consequence of God's judgement.
If some people were just more susceptable to a particular disease due to genetics, then what?
The religous zealot can no longer point to the infected and claim that he was spared because his supuerior moral character was recognized by God.
In all of these cases, it is the denial of the role of genetics that facilitates the virtue signalling.
If people just are what they are, there isn't really a way to use the differences as a prop to command moral authority.
For the people who are just fed up with moralfaggotry, biological essentialism has a strong appeal here.
