Groucho Marxism

One of the most surprising things about the Epstein files, to me at least, has been the number of eminent scientists who are implicated. These include cognitive scientist Joschua Bach; neuroscientists Edward Boyden and Mark Tramo; linguist Noam Chomsky; computer scientists David Gelernter and Marvin Minsky; psychologists Jonathan Haidt, Stephen Kosslyn, and Steven Pinker; physicists Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss; and palaeontologist Jack Horner. The degree of implication varies, from those who are only mentioned in this files to those who appear to be in up to their neck. The kindest interpretation is that this is a sign of extremely poor judgement on the part of these scientists. But the evidence suggests there is more to it than that.

The published extracts from the Epstein files reveal that some of these scientists involved hold (or at least held) some pretty repellent views. For example, in 2016 Joshua Bach wrote to Epstein that “black kids in the US have slower cognitive development”. Here Bach seems to be channeling two other scientists with particularly odious views, namely the psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray. In 1994 Herrnstein and Murray published a book that has since become notorious called The Bell Curve, in which they argued for a link between race and intelligence. The Bell Curve has now been completely debunked, something Bach seemed unaware of in his correspondence with Epstein.

Bach also wrote to Epstein that women “tend to find abstract systems, conflicts and mechanisms intrinsically boring”. And he is not the only misogynistic scientist in the Epstein files. In a letter from 2011, David Gelernter described one of his undergraduate students to Epstein: “I have a perfect editoress in mind: Yale sr, worked at Vogue last summer, runs her own campus mag, art major, completely connected, v[ery] small goodlooking blonde”. Ugh. More disturbingly, in an unsealed deposition from 2016, Virginia Giuffre stated that she had been directed to have sex with Marvyn Minsky during a visit to Epstein’s compound in the US Virgin Islands. Then there’s Lawrence Krauss, who in 2017 reached out to Epstein for advice on how to respond to his own sexual misconduct allegations.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment to those of us on the left has been the revelation that Noam Chomsky and Jeffrey Epstein were apparently best buddies. Chomsky even went as far as giving advice to Epstein on how to handle Virginia’s Giuffre’s accusations when she went public with them in 2019. Specifically, Chomsky advised Epstein to not comment on it because that would provide additional negative public attention, adding “That’s particularly true now with the hysteria that has developed about abuse of women, which has reached the point that even questioning a charge is a crime worse than murder.” Not only is this nonsense; it demonstrates that Chomsky was turning a blind eye to the abuse that Epstein was perpetrating.

Sadly, many on the left have responded by trying to make excuses for Chomsky’s behaviour. The left-wing journalists Aaron Maté and Glenn Greenwald have both come out and defended him since the revelations about his close friendship with Epstein were made public. Others have tried to make out that Chomsky’s involvement demonstrates that those on the left were no more immune from Epstein’s manipulation that those on the right. I think these people are being far too easy on Chomsky. There is simply no excuse for his behaviour, and in my view the only correct response is to declare that he does not represent the left and drop him like a hot potato. No genuine leftist would allow their head to be turned by a shyster like Epstein.

These revelations got me wondering if there is a link between eminent scientists and sociopathic behaviour, so I decided to see if there is any other evidence that backs this up. And it turns out, there is. Take, for example, the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, founding father of quantum theory who devised both the seminal equation and the thought experiment involving a cat that now bear his name. In 1926, at the age of 39, Schrödinger tutored a 14-year-old girl who he then proceeded to have a sexual relationship with, later managing to get her pregnant. According to his biographer Walter Moore, Schrödinger had a “Lolita complex”. A 2021 Irish Times article labelled Schrödinger “a serial abuser whose behaviour fitted the profile of a pedophile in the widely understood sense of that term”.

Or take Jon von Neumann, a polymath generally considered to be one of the cleverest people who has ever lived. In the late 1930s von Neumann got involved in the development of nuclear weapons. He was included in the target selection committee that chose the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the targets of the atomic bomb. The cultural capital Kyoto was von Neumann’s first choice, a suggestion that was thankfully voted down. Von Neumann oversaw computations related to the expected size of the bomb blasts, estimated death tolls, and the distance above the ground at which the bombs should be detonated for optimum shock wave propagation. In short, he made sure the bombs would kill as many people as possible. What an appalling use of such a formidable intellect.

I should make clear that I am not for one moment suggesting all scientists are sociopaths; I’m sure the vast majority of scientists are perfectly nice people. But the number of eminent scientists displaying sociopathic behaviour is too high to be ascribed to chance alone. It pains me say this as I have a science / maths background myself and grew up idolising people like Schrödinger and von Neumann. Yet now I can see that they were truly awful people. There is clearly something about being at the top of the scientific profession that encourages sociopathic behaviour. I have some theories as to what this something might be, but I will leave that to a future blog post.