The most valuable research on the topic of chilling effects has been done by Heterodox academy[1].

I especially recommend their recent article on "seizing the means of knowledge production"[2], because it explains how we got here and provides examples of some sort of suspension of skepticism: «For instance, training on microaggressions, white privilege, implicit bias (coined in 1993, fyi), etc. were institutionalized in the private sector, and even among government agencies, well before there was any kind of robust empirical literature validating these constructs or showing that the proposed interventions would be effective. Indeed, the available empirical evidence now suggests that there are deep problems across the board with these ideas and approaches (here, here, here, here, here, here, here for more on this point). However, these frameworks and interventions are already so deeply entrenched – including within institutions of higher learning — that the empirical research is now almost entirely beside the point». Of course, this open-mindedness was more than matched by extreme suspicion and demand for rigour in the other direction[3], which we also see here.

Also consider that personal views of experimenters affect what results they get, with a very large effect size – larger than most effect sizes actually discovered in social science[4], which, given political leanings in sciences such as psychology[5] and the replication crisis, makes one wonder how much trust should be given even to actual long-standing scientific arguments against politically unpopular ideas. But such arguments make an incredibly small contribution to the intellectual rejection of this research.

To people who argue on the topic of race & intelligence (which is indeed the most obvious, the most politicized, but not the only point of contention), bringing up arguments like "research did not control for environmental differences" or "g factor is meaningless" or "IQ tests are not fair", I want to say: you know almost nothing on the issue, you don't understand how little you know[6], and the fact that you perceive yourself as knowing enough to make confident judgements is precisely the testament to the power ideology has over popular reporting. But it does not yet have equal power over science, which is why actual researchers have views very different from yours[7], and of course all these criticisms were understood, and many addressed, decades ago, e.g.: «A 1999 literature review re-examined the conclusions of Bias in Mental Testing using new data. It concluded that empirical evidence strongly supported Jensen's conclusion that mental tests are equally valid measures of ability for all English-speaking people born in the United States. The review further argued that misinformation about bias in IQ tests is very pervasive, and thus it is important for the empirical data in this field to be clearly conveyed to the public»[8]. If you wish to learn about it, better read «The Neuroscience of Intelligence» by Richard J. Haier from Cambridge University Press, 2016[9], it's an excellent summary. Don't rely on Youtube videos and opinionated blog posts.

I could go on and on. But in general, HN's reaction to this topic is disappointing: obviously intelligent, well-meaning and skeptical people straining their eloquence to rationalize what amounts to journalists' ignorant, unhelpful [10] and politically biased[11] opinion on science, all (I presume) out of unconscious desire to not have a stain on one's career or being considered morally corrupt.

So it goes.

1: https://heterodoxacademy.org/about-us/

2: https://heterodoxacademy.org/seizing-means-knowledge-product...

3: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-015-9421-3

4: http://www.lscp.net/persons/dupoux/teaching/JOURNEE_AUTOMNE_...

5: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-...

6: http://www.gwern.net/Mistakes#iq-race

7: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961...

8: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_in_Mental_Testing

9: https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-F...

10: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/09/inequal...

11: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/22/20040622-08...